Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

What will today bring?

[Mr. Bumble]

So far a bunch of 504 messages; gateway timed out.

[santamonica811]

I've been getting a ton of those, only at the VC, for the past week or so. Happened also to me about 4-5 months ago, lasted a week or two, and then went back to working normally.

I blame Obama, naturally. 😉

[Kazinski]

I blame server backups that kick off midnight PDT, same time the open thread kicks off.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So if you are a dude and you date a pre-op trans woman…does that mean you are gay?? And are the people that date trans individuals also crazy?? Btw, Republicans insist they have no problem with trans people so long as they aren’t in the military and aren’t playing girls sports and aren’t transitioning as minors…so what is the problem with an adult dating a trans adult??

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing in your example unless something about the relationship caused the gay guy to murder someone.

[John F. Carr]

I wonder if they had the chance to have a conversation in those 30 hours afterwards.

"I did it for you!"

"I didn't ask for this."

[Brett Bellmore]

Given that his room mate is cooperating with the police, and helped turn him in, that does sound plausible.

[Moderation4ever]

Hopefully it is not the case that the roommates situation influenced Tyler Robinson's actions. But it is interesting that Robinson experience in directly knowing a transgender or pre-transgender person may have affected his view on the issue. I sure that many people on both sides of the transgender issue develop their beliefs without ever really knowing and interacting with a transgender person.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it necessary to know a murderer to have an opinion about murder?

[Moderation4ever]

Dum reply. The fact is that knowing a murderer may well affect your views of the crime they committed. And it could affect you both ways. A defense lawyer will without doubt try to humanize his client for the jury.

[William of Brooklyn]

No.

[Nelson]

“ Is it necessary to know a murderer to have an opinion about murder?”

It’s necessary to know a person before declaring them a groomer or a pedophile, but that doesn’t seem to stop the right when they talk about teachers, drag queens, gay people, and trans people (but oddly not about religious figures, who have a much higher rate of pedophilia).

Conservatives seem to believe they know everything about a person based on what characteristics they have.

[damikesc]

Cite?

[not guilty]

Come on, now, Nelson. Horny preachers like Ted Haggard are just getting a little behind in their work.

(When it comes to Haggard and Jones, I prefer Merle and George to Ted and Mike.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, you're gay.

But I'll have to re-watch It's Always Sunny. IIRC they had a whole storyline on this.

[Nelson]

Such a great show. So sad to see it end.

[Lee Moore]

so what is the problem with an adult dating a trans adult??

I assume you mean a male adult having sex with another male adult, who would prefer to be female.

Leviticus covers the ground :

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

I add the last two bits in case you were wondering about furries.

I believe these days people of the book, except Muslims, do not usually regard it as their responsibility to police the first of these prohibitions, leaving the policing and punishing to The Almighty.

I believe the question of how far Christians are required to go about condemning the aforementioned abomination, lest the wrath of the Lord be directed at their acquiescence - see cakes, flowers etc - remains like so many things, a matter of debate.

[Reallynotbob]

Better hang Leviticus next to the 10 Commandments in schools. Better yet, staple a whole Bible to the wall for schoolkids to reference. Or just assign it as memory work.
Church and State, together forever, eh?

[Lee Moore]

Not sure you want to be encouraging 9 year olds to grill the teacher on what lying with mankind means. Or indeed lying with womankind.

I would be sticking up little sums like 5+7 =12 and so on.

Before they learn the Ten Commandments, several of which have adult themes, they need to learn to count up to 10.

What’s that these days ? 6th grade ?

[Nelson]

“ Leviticus covers the ground”

The Bible also sees genocide and slavery as perfectly fine (as long as you give the slaves the Sabbath day off, of course, otherwise it’s a sin), so perhaps don’t use it as a guide to moral behavior.

[bernard11]

OK, Lee.

No more ham, pork chops, or bacon for you, and forget cheeseburgers, shrimp, lobster, etc.

And once that's settled, there are a few other matters we should discuss.

[Lee Moore]

🙂

I have a Jewish friend whose mother hotly, and sincerely, denies that bacon is swineflesh - otherwise it would have "pork" in the name. My friend, who is very keen on bacon, has never put in any serious effort at changing her mind.

I was trying to explain to Sam what the folk he referred to as "Republicans" think. I took him to be referring to the sort of conservatives whose moral lives are informed to a considerable extent by the Bible, rather than those (few) who are excited by balanced budgets.

As it happens I'm an atheist (or an agnostic) - not sure I can slide neatly into either category. I don't believe there is a God - or many gods - but I can't logically rule out the possibility, which pushes me out of the atheist bucket. But I don't think the existence of God is unknowable either. Seriously Big Guy with beard and pointy finger appears on Earth and starts toasting gay men and blasphemers - hard to deny the evidence of ones eyes. So I'm not strictly an agnostic either. Just a sceptic.

So I'm willing to take my chances on bacon. What after all is Hell, but a world without bacon ?

But most of your list is denied to me anyway, most of the time, by an even scarier figure with a pointy finger - Mrs Moore.

As a purely textual matter, however, I think we can be superconfident that God is very very anti gay (or strictly anti male-male gay) because very few of his prohibitions rise to the level of "abhomination." I can't think of any of the top of my head besides the gay thing.

Onan got himself put to death by Yahweh for ..... well opinions differ on precisely what it said on the charge sheet, but even that didn't rise, or sink, to the level of an abomination.

I'd be pretty confident of getting a bacon eater off with a flogging. Gay sex, not so much.

[Sarcastr0]

As a purely textual matter, however, I think we can be superconfident that God is very very anti gay

I don't think that's at all undeniable as a textual matter.
First, the authority of the Old Testament laws is at question, as applied beyond the Jewish people. See NG below for the ad absurdum argument for that.

Second, you're arbitrarily saying abomination is the worstest, though there is no story of a smiting for it, as with Onan.

I'm more playing devil's advocate, but the point is that your certainty comes from you bringing cultural baggage into your analysis rather than close reading.

[Lee Moore]

I think you are confusing the legislative provision (against lying with mankind) with the judgement of the court in a particular case (Onan’s case.)

You would only find out the punishment for lying with men if there was a particular case of it mentioned in the Bible. Oh wait - there’s Sodom and Gomorrah. I don’t believe they got off with 30 days and a $100 fine. More like the destruction of both cities with burning sulfur and the death of everyone minus a devout Republican and his daughters.

[Sarcastr0]

It's never specified what exactly is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah other than a failure of the law of hospitality.

Sure, the denizens asked that the angels be brought out to be 'known.' That's rape. But rape being bad enough the details specifics are left out, not being needed.

Feel free to look up the interpretations of the story; the anal sex bit is very much a modern innovation.

[not guilty]

I am reminded of the story about a rabbi and a Catholic priest, both of whom were generally devout, good naturedly inquiring whether the other had transgressed the prohibitions of his faith.

The rabbi said, "Well, once I did have a ham and cheese sandwich."

The priest replied, "Once in a moment of weakness I indulged in carnal relations with a young woman."

The rabbi observed, "I'll bet that was a lot more fun than my sandwich!"

[not guilty]

"Leviticus covers the ground"

Leviticus covers this ground, too:

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

The message is reiterated in Deuteronomy 14:9-10, which says:

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

Keep in mind whom the pronouns "ye", "you" and "thou" in that chapter refer to -- the followers of Moses and Aaron, who then were in the Sinai wilderness. Per Leviticus 18:1-3, the persons bound are "the children of Israel" regarding conduct in "the land of Canaan":

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

The commands of that chapter apply to a single nation of twelve tribes of people, in order to distinguish them from "the doings in the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, . . . and . . . the doings of the land of Canaan".

FWIW, that same deity later installed as king over Israel a dude who proclaimed that love from his brother-in-law "was wonderful, passing the love of women." II Samuel 1:26.

[Riva]

To suggest that there is some underlying homosexual or romantic insinuation in a passage describing the profound love in a friendship is taking your sick ignorant religious to a new level. Not sure how much lower one could go. I recommend you stop digging.

[Riva]

That's "religious bigotry," but maybe better to describe it as a hatred of religion, specifically Christianity and Judaism apparently. Do you really think your bigotry is somehow compelling or convincing?

[not guilty]

I don't hate Christianity or Judaism. I am myself a Christian believer, and I treasure the Jewish religion for, among other things, bringing the world the Messiah -- the most influential Jew in world history.

I am skeptical of many hustlers who call themselves "Christian," just as Jesus was highly critical of the Jewish leadership in the first century. I believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV):

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And like it or not, David did compare and contrast Jonathan's love for him specifically with that of women who also loved him. (Including, among others, Jonathan's sister.) If the context was not sexual, then it makes little sense to bring up women's love. David was quite a carouser.

[Riva]

You’re a disturbed and obnoxious religious bigot who seems to take some sick pleasure in mocking and distorting scripture. Again, do you really think your infantile hate and bigotry presents a compelling argument? So childish that it seems to be a sick joke. But joke or not it’s still obnoxious religious bigotry.

[not guilty]

Riva, I have likely forgotten more scripture than you have ever known. (I was taught by fundamentalist hatemongers, but not by kiddie diddlers and their enablers.)

Just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the first century church at Corinth, when I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. (I Corinthians 13:11 RSV.) I no longer try to shoehorn scriptural text into preconceived notions.

Bigotry and critical thought are orthogonal to one another.

[Krayt]

I've mocked this over many decades, that everyone is supposed to follow some rule because a desert nomad got a case of the ickies 2500 years ago.

He was a weirdo. Grasshoppers, katydids, crickets, every manner of hopping bug, tho, chow down!

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think a world full of social constraints is on the whole a wiser world than the one exampled by the typical anonymous internet commenter. Of course social constraints ought to remain open for critique. But if a question for focus is whether the quality of internet commentary would improve or degrade if commenters published under their actual names, I think it would be the former.

I think attention to that issue is a pretty ready source of an answer to those who profess to be baffled about how social media have so degraded the public life of the nation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a fair number of us actually do use our real names.

[Frank Drackman]

You can count me In! (Out) on that one (HT Lenin/McCartney)

[not guilty]

If you are referring to the song performed by Gary Lewis & the Playboys, that is not a Lennon/McCartney composition. It was written by Glen Hardin.

[Frank Drackman]

If you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait

[RedheadedPharoh]

Me too!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, the Federalist Papers were published anonymously.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I'm not arguing that it's always wrong to use a pseudonym. I got my start on the internet before cancel culture was a thing, and by the time it was a big deal I'd been out there for so long I didn't see the point of adopting one.

I was just making an observation, that not all of us here are pseudonymous.

[shawn_dude]

McCarthy laughs at your assumption that "cancel culture" is new.

[Brett Bellmore]

By "cancel culture" I don't mean getting in trouble for being a suspected spy for a totalitarian adversary, or being thought to be libeling people as such. I'm referring to the imposition of formal and informal consequences for the mere expression of opinion, often even mainstream opinion.

[not guilty]

By "cancel culture" I don't mean getting in trouble for being a suspected spy for a totalitarian adversary, or being thought to be libeling people as such. I'm referring to the imposition of formal and informal consequences for the mere expression of opinion, often even mainstream opinion."

H/t H. Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass (1871).

[Sarcastr0]

McCarthyism wasn't just about spies.

It included a lot of "imposition of formal and informal consequences for the mere expression of opinion."

[shawn_dude]

"mainstream opinion."

So it's NOT cancel culture if the opinion isn't "mainstream?" What a great setup! Anyone that agrees with me is "mainstream" and everyone else is "fringe" and they're not a "victim" if I cancel them. Woohoo!

And... if conspiracy theory becomes "mainstream," being challenged and corrected for being loony is "cancel culture" and gives "victim" status to conspiracy nuts.

I can see why you like this scheme!

[Nelson]

“ getting in trouble for being a suspected spy for a totalitarian adversary”

That’s not what McCarthyism was. It was unfounded accusations against innocent people for political gains, with rabid ideologues using the baseless accusations to destroy people’s lives.

“ I'm referring to the imposition of formal and informal consequences for the mere expression of opinion, often even mainstream opinion.”

Since I believe you’ve posted before that Charlie Kirk was in the political mainstream, you don’t really have a lot of credibility.

Cancel culture is awful. Period. McCarthyism was cancel culture, with the added threat of political persecution heaped on top.

Conservatives are exactly as willing to engage in cancel culture as liberals, so it’s not like there isn’t a consensus on it. The only difference is what the baseless accusations (like pedophilia) are and which victim is being smeared.

[damikesc]

Ironically, somebody recognized that there was a risk that some innocent people might get named and end up being innocent. This person asked to have the hearings private to avoid as much negative impact as possible.

That person was McCarthy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — A big part of the trouble with McCarthyism is the way it booby trapped erstwhile mainstream opinion. During WW II the Roosevelt Administration was running an operation from an airbase in northern Montana, to ferry U.S. aircraft to the Soviet Union. On the flights bringing the ferry pilots back, came swarms of NKVD agents, with assignments to hook up with US helpers. Those ushered the NKVD in to photograph US defense plants, and make copies of blueprints useful to the Soviet military effort against Germany.

All mainstream, in its way. Even Lesley Groves played a role. He sent a sample of enriched uranium to assist development of the nascent Soviet atomic bomb program, but took pains to make it an impure sample. All that is reported by Richard Rhodes, in, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb.

Against that backdrop, the persecutions of Oppenheimer, the Rosenbergs, and Alger Hiss can be seen accurately as the political opportunism they actually were. All of the Soviet-friendly activities of those put together did not inflict even a notable fraction of the espionage damage accomplished by Klaus Fuchs.

More to the point, at the time so many Americans were actively pro-Soviet and anti-fascist, that was within range of respectable US opinion, however vociferously opposed by isolationists. When you find yourself cheering for the criminalization of formerly mainstream opinions, you ought to notice the kinds of historical precedents that go along with that.

[William of Brooklyn]

Right. There are definitely times and circumstances that warrant pseudonyms. I remember having the opposite position many years ago, posting on Unclaimed Territory. Glenn Greenwald persuaded me of the need for pseudonyms, particularly for those posting from repressive regimes. But there are other reasons, too. What we now see is a pre-evaluation of a comment based on irrelevant factors about the commenter rather than the engaging the content of the comment.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But if a question for focus is whether the quality of internet commentary would improve or degrade if commenters published under their actual names, I think it would be the former.

I'm not so sure about that, given the number of people who have lost their jobs and/or suffered severe damage to their reputations the past few days due to their eagerness to gleefully celebrate/justify the murder of someone they disagreed with...often by regurgitating a lie about him....using their real names (sometimes even on video).

[NvEric]

Real names would make better discussion, and so too would real-time video face-to-face even more. But, also it goes to the seriousness of the people wanting the platform to be a certain way.

At least here there's more value than most other places.

[Krayt]

The three letter agencies, and the analytic companies, all know who you are anyway, both through traffic analysis, and probably writing style analysis to tie you accross various fora, and publishings if you do that.

The only ones unaware are asses who might abuse the knowledge for social ostracism reasons. Or worse.

Speaking anonymously is a fundament property of the First Amendment, precisely for this reason, that you cannot be tracked down and harrassed. Like the secret ballot.

A bunch of thugs wandering up and putting their arm around you to discuss what you said, or how you voted, isn't improving one god damned thing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, I think your commentary would be improved by a voluntary decision to write under your own name. It would make you more thoughtful. There is not a big social advantage, either for an author, or for the public, in heedless opinions.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congrats to Stephen Colbert.

"Sometimes, you only know how much you love something when you get a sense you might be losing it. ... I have never loved my country more desperately. God bless America."

"Stay strong and be brave, and if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy and punch a higher floor," Colbert added, paraphrasing the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy."

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/-late-show-stephen-colbert-wins-emmy-cbs-cancellation-rcna231276

The times do look bleak. For instance, the Trump Administration continues to be able to lie with impunity.

I guess they will just continue to lie to the courts with abandon. After all, in the Trump administration, when you don’t face accountability for one misdeed, you keep doing that same misdeed over and over again.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/trump-doj-lies-drew-ensign-deportations.html

Among other things. It is hard to believe, perhaps, but it has not even been nine months. Sunday, September 15, 1963, was the date of a bombing of a church. Justice took a while to come.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/173629882

[Mr. Bumble]

Horse hockey.

[Commenter_XY]

Sniff, sniff. Joe needs a hanky.

[Martinned]

Yes. I'd imagine it must be quite sad for a patriotic American to see their country go to hell in a handbasket.

[Frank Drackman]

As Rush Limbo used to say, we can't even go to Hell in a Handbasket because Hillary bought them all to put her "Deplorables" in!
OK, if he didn't say that, it's something he could have said.

Frink

[Kazinski]

Its getting better all the time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

B. Hussain was worse...

[David Nieporent]

That manages to be both racist and misspelled. Dr. Ed is impressive in his incompetence.

[Bunny495]

Bottom line is Colbert is an entertainer and failed to entertain enough peeps to cover the cost of his entertainment. His show was losing something North of $US40,000,000 a year with over 200 employees. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure why he was fired.

[Malika la Maize]

https://www.tvinsider.com/1209626/jimmy-kimmel-says-late-show-losing-money-reports-are-not-accurate/#:~:text=There's%20just%20not%20a%20snowball's,all%20you%20need%20to%20know.%E2%80%9D&text=CBS%20surprised%20viewers%20when%20it,receive%20approval%20from%20the%20FCC.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

LOL! "Jimmy Kimmel says..." is hardly the slam-dunk rebuttal you seem to think it is.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, what does he know about the late night industry?

[damikesc]

Not a hell of a lot, to be frank.

[Harvey Mosley]

Please! One Frank is more than enough.

[Jazzizhep]

I bet he doesn’t know jack about the accounting on another network. He is just guessing as he was propping up his friend and being a little scared of of his own pay and the trajectory of his industry.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, he’s just worked in the field in various ways but doesn’t know what highly politically motivated rando internet commenters damisek and Jazzy know!

[Jazzizhep]

I can know everything about the business of making widgets while working for Gidgit’s Widgets.

That doesn’t mean I know how much money Bridget’s Widgets is making (assuming a private company).

You know this. Or, for the love of God, you should if you claim to have a higher IQ on the evolutionary scale above a shit-burrowing dung beetle of the Serengeti.

[Nelson]

So your assumption is that the highest-rated late night show was losing money? What is your assumption about all the others, then?

[Jazzizhep]

Umm, I don’t know. See my example above.

Perhaps it was production costs with a staff of 200. Perhaps being #1 with a dwindling market makes a difference. Maybe Colbert refused to cut staff or his own salary. I don’t know anymore than Kimmel does. But I guess he knows more than the NYT. Of course the NYT could just be covering for Trump as they have always done.

Oh, Gutfeld! was the highest ranked when he was in the same time slot. Still is

[damikesc]

The "highest-rated" that could not draw the same numbers FNC draws with Gutfeld (with markedly fewer stars appearing)? That had a large staff and a "star" with a hefty salary?

Late night was a cash cow in the old days --- when the audience was, roughly, 10 times what it is now. Those days have ended.

CBS says they are losing lots of money. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, what does he know about the late night industry?

About as much as the organ grinder's monkey knows about his owner's finances.

[Jazzizhep]

The quote from JK is “There’s just not a snowball’s chance in hell that that’s anywhere near accurate. Even that — that’s all you need to know. Suddenly he’s losing $40 million a year?”

Doesn’t sound like he has a clue what another show on another network made or lost. Nice self-own Malika.

[Malika la Maize]

As your parents often ask coming into their basement, explain?

[Brett Bellmore]

From what I've heard it wasn't "suddenly", more a matter of it being ongoing and they finally got tired of it.

[Nelson]

So if the highest rated late night show was losing money, what’s your opinion on all the others?

[Jazzizhep]

Have you not seen a declining market. Not wanting half the country to watch has something to do with it.

Ya know, the big fish in a small pond in the Mojave after a big rain storm,

His best ratings have come after the show was cancelled.

[damikesc]

None of them are profitable, most likely. I'll go ahead and say none of them are profitable and none are even all that close. They are charity cases. Fallon has the best shot at surviving as he seems most willing to not intentionally constantly alienate half of the potential audience.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I do not know about the economics of the Colbert show. I do know that covering politically-motivated media changes with sketchy allegations of financial losses goes back to the Murrow era. It's easy for media executives to insist, for instance, that a profitable show is losing them money, because they think some other show in the same slot would make more. And of course no public disclosures of the books show up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"paraphrasing the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy."

Very current reference. Is it even a popular Prince song?

Colbert is both stunning and brave!

[David Nieporent]

Very current reference. Is it even a popular Prince song?

Yes. I mean, probably not with Gen Zers.

[David Nieporent]

The times do look bleak. For instance, the Trump Administration continues to be able to lie with impunity.

I guess they will just continue to lie to the courts with abandon. After all, in the Trump administration, when you don’t face accountability for one misdeed, you keep doing that same misdeed over and over again.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/trump-doj-lies-drew-ensign-deportations.html

It's not going to stop until people like Drew Ensign are disbarred. Trump may have immunity, but his lawyers don't, particularly for disciplinary measure.

I assume the people here who insisted that Trump is so humanitarian and honest that he couldn't possibly be illegally shipping children out of the country will recant.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

New York football fans are not big fans of kickers.

The Jets lost a game on a 60-yard field goal last week. This week, the Giants wound up losing a game in significant part thanks to a 64-yard field goal. One horrible thrown ball later helped, too.

In this week's NFL craziness, there was also a successful late onside kick. The team, though their opponent kept on giving them chances via penalty, couldn't do anything to advance the ball. And lost anyhow. I didn't watch the game on television.

You can keep track of games online, which will also be something baseball fans will be doing.

[Malika la Maize]

Tennessee Volunteers share your pain!

[not guilty]

Yes. The loss to Georgia on a missed field goal in the final seconds of regulation play hurts.

[Frank Drackman]

That's what Tennessee does, lose to Georgia.
And yes, my Auburn Tigers also (Want to gloat you H8-ers?? My Extended Fambily is 97% UGA fans)
OK, except the German 1/2, they don't really follow the College Foo-Bawl, they're Energie Cottbuss fans, playing this season in the "3 Liga" which as I understand it, is like Single A Baseball (See, In Soccer, the shitty teams get sent to the next lowest league, not sure what happens to the shitty teams in the lowest leagues)
Doing pretty good so far, 2-1-2 (2 Ties in 5 games? how Exciting!) which is good for 7th place out of 20 teams.

Fraink

[bernard11]

Tennessee? Bah!

Nothing sucks like a big orange.

[Armchair]

Field Goals have gotten longer and longer over the last several years in the NFL. For the Giants game, a 64-yard field goal was "well within" the Dallas kicker's range. Even 67-68 was considered reasonable. Which meant Dallas didn't even need to be past midfield.

I think moving the field goal posts back another 5 yards on each side is something that should realistically be considered in the NFL.

[Martinned]

Just make them kick from wherever the ball goes dead, like in rugby. Letting them kick from the middle of the field is what makes it easy (easier, anyway).

[Don Nico]

I like that approach better than moving the goal posts.
But jb approach is pretty easy to implement and definitely would change the percentage of successful kicks

[David Nieporent]

Narrow the uprights.

[Armchair]

They did that in a Pro Bowl a while ago. It doesn't necessarily fix the range issue, but it does make everything (short and long) kicks less accurate

[Armchair]

What our Dutchman doesn't appear to know, is that in American Football, they don't just "kick from the middle of the field" unless the ball goes dead there. It's placed at the right or left hash if it goes out on the right or left sideline respectively.

[Frank Drackman]

Into the stands? that would be sort of cool actually. First few years I watched NFL Goalposts were on the Goal Line (Yes, I'm old) and served as extra Linemen for plays close to the End Zone.

Frank "Illegal Pick on the Falcon's Goal Post! Penalty is 1/2 the distance to the Goal, this is the Goal Post's first Penalty of the game!" (Love to see them eject the Goal Post)

[Armchair]

"Into the stands?"

Not necessarily. Most modern field goal posts have a curve forward that adds 2 yards to the distance. This way the pylon holding the posts isn't "right" on the endzone, but 2 yards behind it.

If you really wanted to get interesting, you could just "turn the post around 180 degrees". That would add 4 yards to the distance needing to be kicked.

[jb]

... Or narrow the uprights, which is probably logistically easier.

But yeah, it really changes the game if you only need to get a couple of first downs to score.

[Frank Drackman]

Really, you can follow games "Online", can I use my Compuserve Account to do that???
Jeesh, "Man-splain" much??

Frank

[Kazinski]

They ought to change the rule and narrow the goal posts by 2 or 3 feet. Or use a dead ball for kicking.

Routine FG from over 60yds doesn't help the game.

[Jazzizhep]

As opposed to what? Punting?

Aubrey’s kick was slightly right of dead center. Would not have made a difference.

Also, a 60+ yard field goal is just as exciting as a 50+ kick 15 years ago.

[Kazinski]

Or cut the FG to 2 points, I suppose that would help too.

Then its just a rule change, and they can change it back just as easily.

[Armchair]

"Also, a 60+ yard field goal is just as exciting as a 50+ kick 15 years ago."

It wasn't really though. Basically the coach was like "yeah, it's automatic for the 60+ yarder". Cowboys just needed to get like 15 yards after the kickoff then it was like "Oh, tie game".

[Jazzizhep]

Yes, because what the coach says after the game impacts the nervousness of the moment.

No field goal is automatic. Aubrey last year was 14/17 50+, 14/16 40-50, 8/10 30-40. Not exactly automatic—regardless of what the coach says. I was nervous.

How far the Cowboys had to go doesn’t matter. The Giants could have done better on the kickoff and stop them from getting 15 yards. If on the 3rd down play they don’t let the RB pick up four yards it’s now a 68 yard kick—a new record by two yards.

You see it every week where kickers miss field goals they should make. Especially when it is high pressure situations. Aubrey doesn’t have ice in his veins. He has liquid nitrogen. Aubrey is special. Why punish a special talent because he could be one of the best ever?

[Armchair]

"Yes, because...No field goal is automatic..."
True, nothing is automatic. But when something has a very high probability of success, it's less exciting.

"How far the Cowboys had to go doesn’t matter."
-It does though. It significantly changes the game if a team just needs to get 10 yards after a normal kickoff in order to score.

"Why punish a special talent..."
1. Other players can kick far.
2. Sports have many examples of changing rules due to "just one special player". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUwu9XnmN8

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. And football, more than most sports, regularly tinkers with the rules to change the balance of offense vs. defense, passing vs. running, etc.

[Kazinski]

Not more than baseball. DH, Ghost runners, 30 second clock, those are pretty big tweaks.

[David Nieporent]

I'll give you the ludicrous ghost runner rule, but that only comes into play a few times per year per team. The 30 second clock isn't about changing the offense/defense balance; it's about making the game more watchable for fans by speeding it up. The DH, of course, is the most significant change in baseball history of the type I was talking about for football. Other examples include changing the height of the pitcher's mound and tweaking the strike zone.

[Bunny495]

I can barely watch college football with the NIL basically making players de facto employees but not de jure employees. As someone old enough to remember watching Paul Hornung kicking field goals the game is so different than when I first started watching it that I quit being a fanboy long ago.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Colts appeared (I only "watched" it by keeping track at ESPN) to have set up the game to turn on a 60-yard field goal.

They had time to try to get closer, but didn't seem to do so. Missed. After a penalty, the kicker made a 45-yard field goal.

It appears that a fraction of the kickers now can reliably, but not always, make 55-60 yard field goals. I doubt more than a 1/3 can even consistently make it. But once enough do, they will likely change the rules somehow. Now, missing XPs still happen.

I don't think changing the rules to make onside kicks so hard to perform was necessary. Not too important since it was rarely done anyhow. I guess they had their reasons.

[Armchair]

So, they ran the stats for 50+ yard goals.

The of the top 32 kickers, the LOWEST % completion was 50% for 50+ yard field goals in 2024

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/field-goal-percentage-50-plus?season_id=22

[JoeFromtheBronx]

50+ and 55-60 are different things.

A low 50s FG is a fairly safe bet for a good kicker. Over 55yd is more impressive. A smaller subset can be trusted to generally do that.

[Armchair]

Even 55 yarders are becoming more common and easier.

Here's another post. Over the last 2 seasons, 64% of 55-60 yard field goals have been successful.

https://conormclaughlin.net/2025/01/visualizing-nfl-kicker-accuracy-trends-1999-2024/

[Martinned]

Yesterday there were municipal elections in Nordrhein-Westfalen, an election that briefly captured Trumpists' attention when they spread a conspiracy theory that even the AfD thought was too silly to encourage (i.e. that seven AfD candidates had been murdered).

What you make of the elections depends on how you look at it.

The results:
- CDU: 33.3% (-1.0%)
- SPD: 22.1% (-2.2%)
- AfD: 14.5% (+9.4%)
- Greens: 13.5% (-6.5%)
- Left: 5.6% (+1.8%)
- FDP: 3.7% (-1.9%)
- Other: 7.4% (+0.4%)

(Between brackets is the difference compared to four years ago.)

So the government parties lose, and both get their worst municipal election result in NRW since the Land was founded in 1946. The AfD wins, if you compare it to four years ago, but lose 2.3%-points since the Bundestag election earlier this year. So on the one hand this re-affirms the position of the AfD as a stable force on the far right of German politics, on the other hand they didn't really win since the current federal government took office (and the conservatives went from opposition to government).

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/wahlen/kommunalwahlen-2025/ergebnisse-kommunalwahlen-2025-nrw-100.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"...Trumpists' attention when they spread a conspiracy theory that even the AfD thought was too silly to encourage (i.e. that seven AfD candidates had been murdered)."
Source? Which "Trumpists"?

[Martinned]

Several on this blog, for one. Feel free to click through some open threads a few weeks back.

[Riva]

Well at least you’re not spitting out nazi labels against supporters of President Trump, some improvement at least. I had to look this up myself. Statistically, it does seem safer for your health not to be an AfD candidate. As to other matters though, I think it should be concerning to anyone in a free society when state intelligence services target popular political movements for negative reports because those movements favor policies the state doesn’t support. In my opinion, Germany would do better for itself focusing on dismantling its self destructive green energy nonsense, but it’s their call if they want to sacrifice their economy to promote the climate grifters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A TV commercial -- Joe Sixpack working on his car and you see black graffitti on the white garage doors of the adjacent house. Woman comes out, tries to hurry child into car saying "we have to go."

Woman returns and you see pristine white garage doors. Joe Sixpack still working on car, then you see his workboots that have white paint spilled on them. Woman mouths "thank you" to him.

My thought: he just destroyed evidence.

Having the right shade of white paint, and the right kind that isn't going to screw up the doors isn't likely, but a lot of graffitti can be removed with detergent and scrubbing. And while I would be inclined to do that -- particularly if it could do it before the victim even saw it -- isn't that going to get me into trouble with the cops?

Or is there still a "you did a good thing so we'll overlook this" exception?

[Jerry B.]

"My thought: he just destroyed evidence."

As if the police would put any time in on vandalism, especially anti-White vandalism.

[Malika la Maize]

Cool story!

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-515

[Dr. Ed 2]

I forgot to include -- antisemitic graffiti.

[David Nieporent]

My thought: he just destroyed evidence. […] isn't that going to get me into trouble with the cops?

Remember how Costanza once figured out that all his instincts were wrong, and therefore if he wanted to succeed he ought to do the opposite of whatever his instincts told him to do? If only Dr. Ed could ever reach that same level of self-awareness, and would realize that he should just say the opposite of whatever thought popped into his head.

"Destroying evidence" is not a crime. Obstructing justice is a crime, but that requires acting with the intent to affect the outcome of a proceeding.

[AmosArch]

After all these years we shouldn't be surprised but its always eyeopening how grotesquely progs can act when they get riled up.

From dancing and celebrating

https://youtu.be/mL5bFBVLepI?feature=shared&t=6

https://1819news.com/news/item/one-down-more-deserving-threatening-banner-hung-next-to-one-honoring-charlie-kirk-on-cullman-bridge

to turning around and claiming the guy who did the thing they were celebrating and cheering 10 seconds ago was right wing hardcore Trump MAGA because he wore a costume where he rode trump like a donkey

https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1966572448767217971

Its unreal. They have questioned, mocked, misdirected, undermined, and generally have acted in bad faith in every way as much as they thought they could get away with it. That a guy died for speaking out didn't matter. It was simply an obstacle to overcome by any means possible. This should be game over for any lingering hope that the Left as a culture is any better than the boogeyman they claim to fight and a cause for real introspection if you truly think you are one of the few honest sensible people among their ranks. But we all know thats not going to happen.

[Commenter_XY]

Those people are no better than the palestinians who were dancing on 9/11; utter moral reprobates with few redeeming characteristics.

[Michael Ejercito]

How many of them were dancing on 10/7?

[Nelson]

Or the MAGA folks who were dancing when a violent mob invaded the Capitol.

If you’re going to call out bad behavior, be consistent.

[damikesc]

Can you cite the people dancing?

[Martinned]

So cancel culture is good now?

Are you going to cancel Brian Kilmeade too? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/14/business/brian-kilmeade-fox-news-apology-homeless

[AmosArch]

One Republican said something bad! That totally makes up for the legions of leftists celebrating and probably a majority of active leftists engaging in some form of damage control as a priority.

PS If you don't like cancel culture maybe stop being the foremost champions of it?

[Martinned]

I think people who say terrible things should suffer social ostracism as a result. The fact that that never happened to Charlie Kirk speaks volumes about how toxic a society the US has become.

[Brett Bellmore]

It speaks volumes about how warped your notion of what terrible things are has become, actually.

[Martinned]

Seriously? How long do I have to make this list before you accept that Kirk was an extremist, even by Trumpist standards?

- Gay people should be stoned to death
- Most people are scared when they see a black pilot flying a plane
- Taylor Swift should reject feminism and submit to her husband
- No one should be allowed to retire
- Leftists should not be allowed to move to red states
- British Colonialism was what "made the world decent"
- The guy who assaulted the Pelosi's should be bailed out
- Religious freedom should be terminated
- Multiple black politicians "stole white people's spots"
- MLK Jr was "an awful person"
- The Great Replacement Theory is reality
- Hydroxychloroquine cures COVID
- Vaccine requirements are "medical apartheid"
- Guns deaths are acceptable in order to have a 2nd amendment
- Women's natural place is under their husband's control
- Parents should prevent their daughters from taking birth control
- George Floyd had it coming, the Jan 6th protestors didn’t
- The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a "huge mistake"
- Encouraged parents to protest mask mandates
- Mamdani winning in NY is a travesty because Muslims did 9/11
- Muslims only come to America to destabilize Western Civilization
- Palestine "doesn't exist" and those who support it are like the KKK

[Frank Drackman]

Ok, you "Showed me I'm Wrong", guess he deserved that 30:06 through the Neck.
Preparing my list of similar statements for Mullah Ill-hand Omar, Priapism Slap-a-Jap, and Hakeem "the (Bad) Dream)" Jefferson.
But please, nobody shoot any of them with a 30:06, 8mm Mauser, 7.62 NATO....

and am I the only one who finds it "Ironic" (Dontcha Think?) that an "Anti-Fascist" shoots a Non-Fascist (whatever Charlie Kirk was, he wasn't a Fascist) with a Rifle designed/manufactured/deployed by actual Fascists.

Frunk

[not guilty]

Why do those who genuflect to Clarence Toady continue to give Frank Drackman a pass?

IOKIYAR today?
IOKIYAR tomorrow?
IOKIYAR fo'evah??

[Malika la Maize]

Weird, pathetic nuts are crucial to their coalition I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, don't be so hard on "Not Guilty" (Is calling yourself "Not Guilty" evidence of "Consciousness of Guilt"?? I mean we're all "Guilty" of something (me for being so Awesome)

Frnk

[not guilty]

I chose my nom de guerre while I was practicing criminal defense law, because I regarded it as one of the most beautiful phrases in the English language. Obtaining a not guilty verdict from a jury is better than sex.

[Brett Bellmore]

The absolute most beautiful (legal) words in the English language are, "Congress shall make no law".

But it would be kind of long for a pseudonym.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Didn't Stephen King apologize after making the first claim on your list? And given that, why should anybody read further?

[Nelson]

He did, but I’m not sure why. The comment was, in fact, made by Kirk.

But he included “just saying” in the statement, so apparently misquoting the Bible and claiming it says gays should be stoned to death (and that it was God’s perfect law) is supposed to be ignored.

He was a bigot and a misogynist and a racist. The fact that he was also very smart, a great communicator, and willing to go toe-to-toe with his detractors doesn’t make him a good person, it merely makes him a charismatic bad person.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He apologized because Kirk didn't what you claim that he said.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He apologized because he realized that, in the heat of the moment, he had made a mistake. You know, what people used to do before political tribalism completely took over public discourse...

Kirk was apparently responding to someone else's claim that the bible literally supported whatever it was they were arguing (I believe it was some weird gay rights argument). His response was to point out that another part of the bible (indeed, the same chapter thereof) literally said something about stoning gays to death--and he ended his comment with "just sayin'."

In context, it is obvious that he was not advocating that gays be stoned to death, and that his reply was actually intended to point out the folly of taking the bible literally. Not addressed was how he (as a Christian) interpreted that section of the bible, but if he had elsewhere actually advocated the stoning of gays "because bible", I'm sure we would have heard of it.

Am I defending Charlie Kirk? Not at all. Publicly, he was a fairly reprehensible human being. I am defending truth and reason.

[Joe_dallas]

Here is good article on how leftists distort and misrepresent Kirks actual statement.

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/09/14/the-actual-charlie-kirk-2nd-amend-quote-lefties-lie-about-n4943699

[Nelson]

PJ Media! LOLOLOLOL! Why not just quote a source called Anyone Not On The Far Right Is Wrong? It’s more likely to be accurate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is a poor example, but about par for your course... MAGA has attempted to "cancel" people merely for quoting Charlie Kirk's own words--those people did not "distort" or "misinterpret" what he said, which was:

"I think it's worth 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."

I think he phrased that particular quote badly, but Charlie Kirk was absolutely correct about the purpose of the 2d Amendment, why it is necessary and that it does not come for free. Moreover, to the extent he believed them, I doubt he would have regretted those words at all.

[Joe_dallas]

martin - do you get bonus points in your echo chamber for repeating out of context statements?

[Don Nico]

"Palestine "doesn't exist" and those who support it are like the KKK"
What is wrong with making a true statement.

[Malika la Maize]

Nothing, but those two statements are not.

[Don Nico]

Sorry, you are wrong. Palestine ceased to be a "state" when the Romans left. Those who support an organization with a pay-to-slay program are just like the KKK.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s silly. The area was called Palestine under the Mandate and in the UN Partition Plan. Currently the UN recognizes Palestine, as does 75% of the world’s nations.

[Don Nico]

The Mandate being called Palestine (an arbitrary choice based on Roman history not Arab inhabitants) did not make it a state. The recent vote in the UNGA does not make it a state either. That anti-Israel vote was just a reward for terrorism.
The PA is certainly not a state apparatus.
The area Arabs have refused a state every time it was offered in the past. Why? because they refused to live next to the Jewish state.
You are the one who is being silly.

[Malika la Maize]

State wasn’t mentioned, he said Palestine doesn’t exist.

What were all those people with the mandate and the partition plan talking about? They sure used the word Palestine a lot, which is funny as Kirk said it “doesn’t exist!”

But more, you’re like “well, yeah most countries and the UN recognizes it, but dang it I think it’s wrong!”

“I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah."

[Bob from Ohio]

"he said Palestine doesn’t exist."

Correct, its Eretz Yisrael

[Malika la Maize]

So, you think Israel has a claim to the land based on the Old Testament. That tracks.

[Don Nico]

Exactly correct, Bob.

[not guilty]

"Correct, its Eretz Yisrael"

Why then does Israel claim both what it refers to as Judea and what it refers to as Samaria? Ancient Jews and Samarians had no dealings with one another.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what it refers to as Samaria? "

"Samaria (/səˈmæriə, -ˈmɛəriə/), the Hellenized form of the Hebrew name Shomron (Hebrew: שֹׁמְרוֹן‎),[1] is used as a historical and biblical name for the central region of the Land of Israel. It is bordered by Judea to the south and Galilee to the north." wikipedia

[Bob from Ohio]

"you think Israel has a claim to the land based on the Old Testament"

Of course. Jews were a victim of the Roman genocide and most [but not all]of the survivors migrated.

Subsequent settler colonial invasions by Arabs and Turks, who replaced the Romans/Byzantines as rulers does not change the superior HaShem given title

[Dr. Ed 2]

He was pointing out that the Bible contradicts itself, saying BOTH stone gays AND love them. And he was right -- it does.

Black or female pilots, you question competence because of AA.

MLK2 cheated on both his PhD and his wife, was involved in what essentially was gang rape, and didn't exactly like gays.

Etc...

[Malika la Maize]

Stone ‘em while you love ‘em!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, kinda in the way any document that's been amended contradicts itself, if you don't understand that the newer supersedes the older...

[Nelson]

So Christianity is like the Kessel Run, where incoherent and incorrect things are changed in a later movie?

Then why do Christians see the Old Testament as religiously valid? Because they do, you know.

[damikesc]

The Old Testament points to Jesus' arrival as the Messiah.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A newer document may supersede an older to reinforce the older, instead of contradict it. The addition of the 2A to the Constitution was an example of that sort.

[damikesc]

Your FIRST thing was a lie.

I won't waste my time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How long do I have to make this list"

LOL You copied it. You should credit the actual worker.

[AmosArch]

Its ironic how Charlie specialized in fighting the common leftoid tactic seen here of lying and extreme strawmanning. If you stepped up to him in one of his debates he would have put your lies in their place in a second. I guess thats why you're glad he's dead.

[Nelson]

Well, Charlie Kirk specialized in using facts that weren’t actually true to make points that were bigoted and incorrect in an attempt to make a terrible set of ideas the guiding principles of American Government.

Other than that, he was a swell guy to have a beer with. Or so I hear.

[NvEric]

Half of those are true, half are out of context, and half are reserved for Yogi Berra.

[Martinned]

Seriously, even if you drop the false claims about what Kirk said, the stuff that remains is still the sort of thing that no self-respecting person should endorse.

https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral-claims-about-charlie-kirks-words/

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you would not expect a self-respecting left-winger to endorse right wing views, any more than you would expect a self-respecting right winger to endorse left wing views. Wisdom is realizing that one's own views are not the definition of what it is respectable to say.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, on the basis of that reasoning, you are poised to put genocide into the Overton window. Charlie Kirk chose on purpose to use overt racist bigotry as a political organizing principle. You are worse than unwise if you insist that is a, "respectable," right-wing view.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you've lied enough about what Kirk said, that I'm just going to ignore you on the topic from here on out.

[not guilty]

The late Charlie Kirk in his own words: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

[Joe_dallas]

NG - you chose to link to an article that misrepresents and distorts his statements

Try linking to an impartial site that provides the full quotes and full context.

[Life of Brian]

Debunking a number of the most virulent lies about Charlie Kirk, in the words of podcaster and friend Amir Odom (who is black and gay, which debunks two of the big ones without even having to watch).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The late Charlie Kirk in his own words: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

If anyone need an reason to not take you seriously, you've certainly provided it here.

[Nelson]

“ who is black and gay, which debunks two of the big ones without even having to watch”

Hey, everyone! Charlie Kirk had friends who were black and gay, so he wasn’t a bigot. Please ignore all the homophobic and racist things he ever said. Didn’t you hear? He had a gay, black friend.

People who say “those people” are racists. The fact that they think that the race, as a whole, is one way while the members of that race (or gender or sexual orientation or whatever bigotry they prefer) the know/are friends with is literally a racist belief.

Saying racial considerations in hiring means that the competence of anyone of that race is questionable is racist. It insinuates that there is a cliff of competence that exists right at the edge of the total employee need of a company and the person filling that last spot isn’t competent.

The non-racist view is that racial considerations make the choice between two potential employees of basically equal competence and advantage for the minority instead of the white/male/whatever candidate.

Do you really think there is a massive difference in competence between people with similar CVs?

[Joe_dallas]

SL - the perception the left has of Kirk is based on highly distorted and misrepresented statements by Kirk

[Malika la Maize]

Rich coming from JD who got caught red handed distorting and misrepresenting his own recent statements!

[Nelson]

“ distorted and misrepresented statements by Kirk”

No, the view that rational people have of Kirk is that he was a nasty person and a bigot of various flavors. No one can listen to or read the things Kirk said and think, “Hm. That’s a kind and honest person who doesn’t have hate in his heart for people weaker and less powerful than him”.

He thought that wives should submit to their husbands regardless of competence or education or career success. And that they should stay home and care for the children. He literally said that Taylor Swift, a brilliant businesswoman who just raked in the largest portion of a billion dollar world tour, should submit to Travis Kelce, who is a very good football player and product spokesman, but has never run anything. And that she should take his name because he is the man. That is misogyny, pure and uncut. And no, that’s not distorted or misrepresented.

He thought that racial considerations meant the competence of minorities for the positions they held should be questioned. Not that they were chosen over an equally competent white person, but that the white person should be assumed to be competent and minority should be assumed to be incompetent. “ "If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like 'boy, I hope he is qualified,'"” he again threw in a “that’s not what I believe” comment, just like the “just saying” he added to his misquoting of the Bible about stoning gays. It’s not credible, considering the constant statements questioning minority competence if any racial considerations were involved. That was his view. That is racism. And, again, that’s not a distortion or misrepresentation.

He called trans people trannys, refused to admit they were sane (as if every diagnosis in the DSM means a patient is incapable of rational thought), and claimed without evidence that they were sexual predators. He also said that trans people should be “ "dealt with the way we did in the 1950s and 60s,"”, which would at best mean lobotamies and forced institutionalization (the legal way) or lynching (the Southern way). He was in favor of violence towards trans people. He also blames trans people for things they had nothing to do with, like inflation. “ There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue”. How is inflation cause by trans people, you say? It isn’t. That’s bigotry.

Charlie Kirk said a lot of things and believed a lot of bigoted things, with references to violence being OK against those he opposed (most specifically gay and trans people). He did the rhetorical version of putting “allegedly” in front of his most hateful rhetoric (although usually he added it later if at all), but if you believe that someone saying “Murderer!!! … long pause … allegedly” isn’t transparent bullshit, you are lying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The hell he did, Lathrop.

[William of Brooklyn]

The above material distortions, even accepted as the gospel truth, don't matter. Nor does what he really said. "Respectable" views don't matter.

Murder is wrong. Full stop. No caveats or conditionals.

[Sarcastr0]

Who here is arguing murder is right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Functionally, basically anybody who insists on leaning into his being an awful guy. Because, if it doesn't matter, why insist on doing it?

[Sarcastr0]

No, one can say a murdered guy is no one to laude without endorsing their murder.

Quit with your anti-speech melodrama. It's super stupid.

One example of how this ridiculous take proves too much is that by your logic many on here including you have endorsed murdering a shitload of black people killed by cops.

[shawn_dude]

Nice to see a conservative voice against the death penalty!

[not guilty]

No one should celebrate Charlie Kirk's death.

Neither should those who found him despicable celebrate his life.

The "Christian Nationalist" movement is neither.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No one should celebrate Charlie Kirk's death.

Don't try to virtue signal now, so soon after contributing to what you're pretending to be above by trying to paint Kirk as a terrible person based on dishonest paraphrases/out-of-context quotes from a propaganda site.

[Nelson]

“ Murder is wrong. Full stop. No caveats or conditionals.”

Agreed. Charlie Kirk was a vile human being and a hatemonger, but he should never have been killed. Full stop.

The people who say “he deserved it” are the left-equivalents of the people who say that illegal immigrants deserve inhumane treatment because they are in America. It is a justification cruelty and violence based on the “I hate him/them so I will justify anything bad that is done.

It’s like the people lauding Luigi Mangione. Yes, the CeO of a heath insurance company is morally deficient. No, he shouldn’t have been killed.

Americans on the fringes are way, way, way too willing to justify violence towards those they disagree with. The Capitol repair bill from January 2020 is just another example.

Killing is wrong. Cruelty, especially towards the powerless, is wrong. Violence, especially for political reasons, is wrong. I wish people would stop believing that there is any acceptable “except for”possible.

[Nelson]

“ Functionally, basically anybody who insists on leaning into his being an awful guy”

No, Brett.

Charlie Kirk should not have been murdered and it isn’t acceptable.

Charlie Kirk was a bad person and the world is less bad without him in it.

Both of those things are true. They are not mutually exclusive.

Bad people shouldn’t get murdered because no one should get murdered. The fact that a person is murdered does not make them a good person, though. Charlie Kirk is the perfect example.

[Nelson]

“ Don't try to virtue signal now, so soon after contributing to what you're pretending to be above by trying to paint Kirk as a terrible person based on dishonest paraphrases/out-of-context quotes from a propaganda site.”

No one is virtue signaling. And Kirk was a terrible person. And it isn’t from dishonest or out-of-context quotes. He made his bones by demonizing trans people, questioning the competence of minorities, and pushing a theocratic, male-dominated vision of society with references to violence being acceptable followed, eventually, by a “just saying” (literally what he said while misquoting the Bible as saying gays should be stoned to death and calling it God’s perfect law on sexual matters.

I know conservatives are whiney, sensitive, victimhood-loving snowflakes, but the guy was what his words show him to be. And that was a bad person.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And it isn’t from dishonest or out-of-context quotes.

If that were true, the dishonestly out-of-context quotes wouldn't be the primary and constant examples being put forth to support your (and others) assertions about him.

[bernard11]

Who here is arguing murder is right?

Functionally, basically anybody who insists on leaning into his being an awful guy. Because, if it doesn't matter, why insist on doing it?

Not clear what you are saying here, Brett. But surely it's OK to criticize a murder victim's views, especially when he was a prominent political figure, without endorsing the murder.

Do you agree with all of MLK, Jr's political views? Are you a fan of James Earl Ray?

[Jazzizhep]

Snopes with full context; they were talking about DEI hires.

KOLVET: We've all been in the back of a plane when the turbulence hits or when you're flying through a storm and you're like, "I'm so glad I saw the guy with the right stuff and the square jaw get into the cockpit before we took off. And I feel better now, thinking about that."

KIRK: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."

KOLVET: But you wouldn't have done that before [DEI]!

KIRK: That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.

NEFF: It is the reality the left has created.

KIRK: I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."

KOLVET: Such a good point. That's so fair.

KIRK: It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people.

All this came from the following quote also found in the same Snopes factcheck.

“The topic came up after a 2021 Axios interview with United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby talking about diversity in United's pilot training program…”

[Nelson]

Conservatives don’t recognize that assuming that a black pilot isn’t qualified is assuming that the level of competence drops off a cliff with job applicants. But of course, it doesn’t.

A good person would think, at worst, that an equally-competent black pilot got the job over a white pilot of the same level. A racists thinks the white guy was competent and the black guy might not be.

And conservatives can’t even recognize the depths of racist assumptions in Kirk’s discussion.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Conservatives don’t recognize that assuming that a black pilot isn’t qualified is assuming that the level of competence drops off a cliff with job applicants.

You clearly don't understand simple English (or are being another lying asshole). What Kirk said had nothing to do with "assuming that a black pilot isn't qualified". That's made pretty obvious by the "Boy, I hope he's qualified." bit. You don't hope that something is true when you're already assuming that it isn't. He was saying that when hiring practices are based on considerations other than qualifications then it's natural to wonder if someone whose hiring was influenced by those other considerations was the most qualified person for the job at the time of that hiring.

That's pretty easy to comprehend, and yet it somehow eludes your feeble grasp.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I never felt I had much cause to worry about any pilot. I figured he/she had as much stake in a safe arrival as I had.

[Jazzizhep]

Like Kirk I never did either. But when a CEO of one of the largest airlines in the U.S. says DEI is a consideration for pilots I start to wonder.

Although much less so than the hispanic, trans heart surgeon who graduated from a DEI school, interned at a DEI hospital, and was hired by a DEI hospital. No thank you. Would you want your child? Be honest.

[Sarcastr0]

DEI school? DEI hospital? What even are you talking about? If you gotta make up extreme and unreal scenarios where the bigotry make sense, maybe you should consider your bigotry isn't fit for the real world.

Though it does sound like you're less bigoted than Kirk, so props for that.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "DEI school? DEI hospital? What even are you talking about?"

Institutions that give preferential treatment, in hiring or other practices, to people based on their race, sexual preference, sexuality, ethnicity, or other superficial basis by which some people apportion "equity" as compensation for categorical statistical "historical disadvantage."

You're for that, Sarc. Stand up for it. Don't act like you don't know what it is.

[Martinned]

I linked to factcheck exactly to avoid endless he said/she said arguments about specific quotes. Charlie Kirk said extremist things with the same frequency that Trump lies; with every waking breath. If you're not willing to see that, I really can't help you. It just means that, like Kirk during his lifetime, you are part of the problem in the US, not part of the solution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, the problem here is that you simply can't tell the difference between "disagrees with me things" and "extremist things".

You need to get used to the idea that a lot of notions you don't like are actually pretty mainstream, or even objectively true.

[shawn_dude]

We live in a time when conspiracy theories are "mainstream" and people view them as "objectively true." History's examples of humans at their worst start here. Every genocide started here. No one should get used to this--left, middle, or right. We fought world wars over this.

[Nelson]

“ Look, the problem here is that you simply can't tell the difference between "disagrees with me things" and "extremist things".”

Believing that all women should submit to, subordinate themselves to, and take the name of their husbands because he is the male is pure misogyny. And not at all mainstream.

Believing that birth control pills make women unstable is misogyny. And not at all mainstream.

Thinking that it’s impossible to find a talent pool for a job that includes equally competent whites and minorities is pure racism and not at all mainstream.

Calling trans people trannys and saying they should be dealt with like the 50s and 60s is pure bigotry and not at all mainstream.

The problem isn’t that people have rightly pointed out that Charlie Kirk was a bad person and he believed, promoted, and attempted to politically implement bad things. The problem isn’t that you and your fellow hard right social conservatives don’t have a problem with these things, so you call it “mainstream”.

It isn’t. Just like waving torches and chanting “Jews will mot replace us” isn’t mainstream.

[Martinned]

You simply can't tell the difference between "disagrees with me things" and "extremist things".

I can. But you and I disagree about where "women shouldn't have the right to vote" falls in that dichotomy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe no self-respecting person should endorse the false claims in the first place?

[Joe_dallas]

martin links to article that distorts and misrepresents the statements made by Kirk

As expected, those quotes omit the full statement.
As expected, martin doesnt pick up on the omissions

[Nelson]

No, the statements aren’t distortions. They’re just hateful because that’s what Charlie Kirk was.

[Kazinski]

Charlie Kirk was center right.

I too am center right.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't you say you want to burn the entire federal government to the ground?
And aren't you a Tommy Robinson fan?

One wonders what far right means to you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Far Right = Far Left

[Martinned]

Sure, but centre-right of what? On the centre-right flank of the American Nazi Party?

[Joe_dallas]

Martin - do you need a history lesson ?
Nazi style behavior is vastly more prominent from the left

[Mr. Bumble]

...because Nazism is of the left.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Aside from all the historical evidence that says that’s incorrect, you know who would be surprised to hear that? Self-described Nazis lol.

[myself]

Well, I guess Joe_dallas and I both agree that politically he's right of the Nazis.

[Nelson]

“ Martin - do you need a history lesson ?
Nazi style behavior is vastly more prominent from the left”

I know that’s what you idiots keep trying to push, but the Nazi ideology and the Nazi movement were far-right political movements.

Note that the neo-Nazis marching with torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us” were at the Unite the Right rally, organized by a neo-Nazi named Richard Spencer and defended by the GOP and conservative politicians (including President Trump).

[Kazinski]

Center Right of the American polity.

After all I'm hardly the in furthest right of America's governing party. Nor furthest left.

You losers don't really think you're the center do you?

[Sarcastr0]

So there’s one person who counts as far right and one who counts as far left and everyone else is center?

No I don’t think that’s center. I thinks that’s misunderstanding the term to an incredible extent.

[Kazinski]

No, I think you have to go with election results as a whole.

We had an national election, not even a year ago and Trump was elected to the White House, the GOP gained 4 seats in the senate, and held , and won the house.

I consider myself squarely in the middle of the GOP, or even a little more libertarian, since I am pro-choice, and think drugs should be decriminalized.

So Center Right, and I think that describes Charlie Kirk too, although he is less libertarian, still firmly in the middle of the ruling party consensus.

[Sarcastr0]

So now you pivot to it can't be extreme because Trump was elected? Elections don't mean everything a President does after that is mainstream.

You say you want to burn the entire federal government to the ground.
You're no centrist, and it's a sign of your weirdness that you think you can claim you are, with that hanging over you.

[Nelson]

“ still firmly in the middle of the ruling party consensus”

That is very, very different from the middle of the American people who are politically active, never mind the middle of the American people as a whole.

You seem to be mistaking a political victory by one party in a two-party system, which involved less than a third of all possible participants, as being an endorsement by all Americans of Donald Trump’s policies. And failing to note that Charlie Kirk was on the right fringe of the GOP, ideologically.

You may be closer to the center than Kirk, but that doesn’t make you center-right. George W Bush was straight right. So was Ronald Reagan. John McCain was center-right. Mitt Romney was center-right. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are center right. Josh Hawley and MTG and Steven Miller and Peter Navarro and the Heritage Foundation aren’t center-right.

[Martinned]

For the record, everything I've seen suggests that Charlie Kirk was far further to the right than Trump. Which is part of why I called Kirk an extremist.

[Nelson]

“ Charlie Kirk was center right.”

If Charlie Kirk was center right, AOC is center left. And therefore that there is nothing except the center.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Seriously, even if you drop the false claims about what Kirk said

And yet you continue to repeat those lies. That should cause some self-reflection. It won't, but it should.

[Nelson]

Except, of course, they aren’t lies. He was an objectively bad human being.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're lying. We know you're lying. And you know that we know that you're lying.

At some point it becomes gaslighting.

[not guilty]

You're lying. We know you're lying. And you know that we know that you're lying.

At some point it becomes gaslighting.

Ah, the dreaded "gaslighting."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

[Sarcastr0]

Always a sign of confidence when someone pulls a 'We know you're lying' with no further engagement to establish their supposed proof.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh ffs. The established proof is upthread. Nelson, among others on this thread, claimed that Kirk said that gays should be stoned.

This is a lie. It has been established to be a lie. Stephen King, who spread the lie, has admitted that it's a lie. And if you've missed it, here is the context, (around 1:00:00) where Kirk says we should love gay people by telling them the truth about their sin, not by stoning them.

So yes, Nelson is gaslighting.

[Krayt]

You currently do not wield, at least unlimited, the social ostracism power at the moment. You long for it again. You suffer under it...when someone else does it.

It is one of the things religion has historically done, for thousands of years. Things that made religion a tyrannical plague.

Other adoptions include original sin, to replace the gestalt of pride at ending the evils of slavery with an eternal hellbound cloud over your head because some assholes ate an apple hundreds of years ago.

And "if you are not with us, you are against us", you cannot be a bystander. You are either with us, or you follow the devil, whether you realize it or not. This is the thesis of "How to be an anti-racist" book.

Those are just three examples off the top of my head. They are why religion is awful in practice. I praise the genius who decided to adopt them to the modern secular religions of politics, as they are proven to work.

And that's plenty of reason to lament it. Hooray! Politics adopts suppression and control techniques from religion.

Hooray!

[damikesc]

You think religion is bad?

Try living under atheism.

Seems that 100M failed to survive that experiment last century.

[Nelson]

“ You think religion is bad?”

The thousands of children raped by religious leader who were protected by their various Churches (Catholic, Southern Baptist, Mormon, Jehova’s Witness, Pentecostal, and more), plus the millions killed by religious groups over the years and the various different moral evils that the religious texts supports (like the Bible being fine with slavery, as long as you give your slaves Sunday off, and genocide) would have strong arguments for why organized religion is bad.

Is there a God? I have no idea. Has there ever been a religion that advocates for and upholds moral behavior? No.

Organized religion is more evil than good, on a societal level. My mother takes great solace from her Catholic faith, and on an individual level I have seen the vast good it can do.

But on a cultural level? Religion is absolutely and unequivocally more bad thing than good thing.

“ Try living under atheism.”

I’m not sure how you would “live under atheism”. It doesn’t seem possible.

But I truly wish we could live under secularism, where religion is something that people can freely choose for themselves and is completely separate from government. Where you, as a religious person, can exercise all of the religious things you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s life and no one else can prevent you from following whatever religious faith you choose.

Plus strongly religious people tend to be smug and imbued with a false sense of moral superiority.

“ Seems that 100M failed to survive that experiment last century.”

Only an idiot or a fanatic would say that the reason Communism killed so many people was because it was hostile to religion.

[not guilty]

As the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg observed, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

[damikesc]

No. Did not say its hostility to religion was why it was evil.

People who hold up religion as the source of evil are morons as, without it, the society is immeasurably worse.

[myself]

By one Republican do you mean the Vice President of the US?

[CountmontyC]

How dare the VPOTUS declare that he will work to get rid of NGOs that promote violence and terrorism.

[Nelson]

Except, of course, that’s not what they are doing.

[CountmontyC]

The actual headline from myself's link

Broadcasting from the White House, JD Vance vows to use the government to dismantle non-profit NGOs and liberal civil society who he says promote violence and terrorism

[Sarcastr0]

"who he says"

Do you see the issue here?

[Sarcastr0]

Prediction:
1.There's going to be EOs like the ones going after law firms, going after left-leaning groups.
It's gonna be explicit and authoritarian as fuck.

2. A well known set of commenters on here are gonna be super into it, because they're apologists who have no real principles.

[David Nieporent]

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

[Z Crazy]

The death penalty goes too far.

[Frank Drackman]

Charlie Kirk's murderer (I refuse to name him) will be clammering to "Transition" himself once he gets into General Population (where at least he can perhaps buy some protection from the other prisoners, in his "Special Housing Quarters" he's at the mercy of the Guards, most of whom (who? help a Brutha out Queenie!) are devout Mormans, which doesn't prevent them from engaging in some Man-Love ("Broke Back, Mounting" style)

[Malika la Maize]

Looks like the short bus has dropped off Francis (“Special Housing Quarters” indeed).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, what part of the LDS bible repeals Leviticus?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would have been nice to have a live Oswald circa 1977 when Congress re-investigated the Kennedy assassination.

This is why I hope he isn't executed.

[Malika la Maize]

“They have questioned, mocked, misdirected, undermined, and generally have acted in bad faith in every way as much as they thought they could get away with it.”

Republican officials sent mixed messages on the attack, prompting criticism from Democrats.[106] Many Republicans denounced the attack,[107][108] though others spread conspiracy theories about it.[108] Some Republicans who condemned the attack issued statements criticizing "both sides" for violent rhetoric and political violence.[107] Few Republicans spoke out against colleagues who spread conspiracy theories before the attack on Pelosi, or who promoted conspiracy theories about the attack itself.[109][110] Top Republican officials, such as Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Emmer, rejected assertions that inflammatory Republican rhetoric, including vilification of Nancy Pelosi, contributed to an atmosphere that risked violence. A week before the attack, Emmer posted a video of himself firing a gun with the hashtag #FirePelosi; after the attack, he deflected a question asking if he should have used a gun in the ad.[111] Some Republicans made jokes about the attack.[104][112] When taunting Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, sarcastically asked, “How's her husband doing?” He then remarked, “She's against building a wall in our border, even though she has a wall around her house—which obviously didn't do a very good job.”[113]

[Sarcastr0]

Nutpicking.

You are mad at a phantom left you made up.

You are hardly alone around here. It is funny watching people who have posted for years steeped in hate for the left pretend now it’s different.

[Don Nico]

"Nutpicking" is in, "moving goal posts" is out. S-) sloganeering does not fool anyone.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“They have questioned, mocked, misdirected, undermined, and generally have acted in bad faith in every way as much as they thought they could get away with it.”

It’s not nice when it happens to someone you cared about, huh? Imagine how Nancy Pelosi, or the Hortman family feel?

[Dr. Ed 2]

According to Wikipedia, the rifle used to murder Charlie Kirk, with a scope, is 1000 meters -- that's over 3/5 of a mile.

Is this the end of outdoor events on college campi?
Even commencements -- Governors, businessmen -- these are people that someone might want to shoot.

[AmosArch]

It was a bolt action hunting rifle. The kind that even strict gun banning countries have the most trouble getting rid of. So essentially the 'common sense' gun control is to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely and a complete ban and immediate confiscation of all guns across the entire nation. And they say 'thoughts and prayers' is a useless gesture.

[Z Crazy]

Why not go all the way and enact Singapore-style justice?

[Krayt]

Ending the second, and caning, are just two small amendments away! Get to it, and The People, if they see it wise, will adopt it as the supreme law of the land.

The irony is there's no where near supermajority support for it, so why even bother sending them out to the states?

Quite unlike a balanced budget amendment and term limits amendments, which everyone knows will pass with flying colors, which is why Lovers of Democracy cannot allow it to happen.

"I'm not sure a balanced budget amendment would pass the states."

Then do it. You love Democracy and these are just policy issues. That's what Democracy was born to do. You have nothing to fear.

Do you? Let's wait and see.

10^^20000000000 years later, the last particle has decayed to quarks and electrons, and the heat death of the universe is complete. Still waiting.

[Martinned]

The kind that even strict gun banning countries have the most trouble getting rid of.

How do you figure? It's not like it's easy to hide.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? Maybe it's not easy to conceal while walking down the street, but hiding it somewhere at home is pathetically easy.

[Martinned]

Still harder than hiding a handgun.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trivially easy is trivially easy, even if you can rank things in terms of HOW trivially easy they are to hide.

[Martinned]

When the police come to do a search of your house, tell me which one they might not find.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! I live in South Carolina, I don't need to hide squat, the state government isn't the slightest bit interested in knowing what I own.

But I recommend The Big Book of Secret Hiding Places; I bought my paperback edition from Loompanics Unlimited years ago, but you can get the kindle version really cheap off Amazon, or find PDFs in multiple places if you don't want to be recorded as owning a copy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me qualify that: The state is not interested in knowing if I own anything I have any interest in owning.

[Frank Drackman]

Back in the 80's I bought a cheap book at a Second hand Book Store (remember Second hand Book Stores?? remember Books??)
Seems it was a directory of Legal Firms in Indianapolis, maybe Evansville, some midwest city, I bought it only because it was 50 cents and (after some "Surgery") the perfect size to conceal a 25 Automatic (Raven Arms)
Put it on the bookshelf of my Bachelor Pad (unlike Hobie-Stank, I lived in a real "Hood") my plan was to use it in case of a Home Invasion (Unrealistic I know, "Hey guys, I need to look up a legal firm, mind if I get this book from the bookcase??")
And for some reason, the book attracted more attention, as it stood out from my Medical Texts, visitors (yes, I had visitors, even women occasionally) were constantly pulling it from the shelf to read it, boy were they surprised! (My Mom for one (Yes, my most frequent woman "visitor")
But she understood why I needed it, she grew up in E. Germany after all.
Still have it (the Book, and the Raven, and my Mom)

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

That book? What does it have to say about hiding expensive stuff from your pissed-off spouse or girlfriend?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's about how to hide stuff, it's agnostic on why you want to hide it.

But I'm just puzzled about why Martinned would be convinced that long arms are somehow hard to hide. Wishful thinking?

[Don Nico]

Stephen, Stephen why would you ask such a thing?

[John F. Carr]

Makes me wonder if when President Clinton spoke at MIT, agents were stationed in the row of buildings along Beacon Street and Back Street across the river in Boston. They are just about 1,000 meters away and have a sight line to the courtyard where events are held.

[Frank Drackman]

In Vietnam, USMC Sniper Carlos Hathcock took out an NVA General from 2,460 yards, Supposedly a You-Crane Sniper took out a Roosh-un General from 4,400 yards last month.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed 2, is there a single fact you can't totally fuck up? Carlos Hathcock didn't use a Barrett M82, he generally used the standard sniper rifle: the Winchester Model 70 chambered for .30-06 Springfield cartridges, with the standard 8-power Unertl scope. He also used the M40 Remington 700 chambered in .308 with a Redfield 3-9x scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the M2 Browning machine gun, on which he mounted an 8X Unertl scope, using a bracket made by metalworkers of the SeaBees. Hathcock made a number of kills with this weapon in excess of 1,000 yards, including his record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,500 yards (since surpassed).[45] Hathcock carried a Colt M1911A1 pistol as a sidearm

[Mr. Bumble]

As of now, this is the record shot:
" In November 2023, the record was once again broken by 58-year old sniper Viacheslav Kovalskyi of the Security Service of Ukraine, who shot a Russian soldier from a distance of 3,800 m (4,156 yd) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[5][6][7][8][9]"

Correction: Another Ukrainian has been credited (name withheld) of a shot in August of this year with a kill at 4000 meters (4374 yds).

[Nelson]

Holy shit. That is a looooong way away. I imagine most people couldn’t make a shot even half as far.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, that was then, this is now -- everything has changed.
I doubt he'd speak outdoors now.

[Frank Drackman]

The Rifle is 1000 meters??
Jeez, that's 2/3 of a mile (Frankie Don't Do Metric!)
How did he ever conceal it?
Jeez-Us, for a supposed Educator you mangle the language way more than a Simple Country Doctor like Moi'.
and he fired from 120 yards, I've hit targets at that distance with my .357 revolver (OK, not consistently)

Frenk

[Joe_dallas]

Looks like the trans connection runs deep with the Kirk assassination. FBI now investigating posts on transgender social media sites for posts prior to assassination.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/exclusive-fbi-investigating-social-media-accounts-that-appeared-to-indicate-foreknowledge-of-kirk-assassination/

[Malika la Maize]

From yesterday’s thread:

Joe_dallas 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Wow - trying to cover up or misrepresent the initial assessment -

The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender. Only a connection.

Now that that facts are publicly available, you are trying to dispute the early information.

Reply
Estragon 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
“The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender. Only a connection.”

But also!

“ Joe_dallas 2 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
not guilty 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It's looking like a tranny shot Kirk."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A transperson I know just mentioned something about the "transmaxx" phenomenon to me. Not something I was previously aware of.

Robinson's "friend" is usually mentioned in the media as someone who is "transitioning", but they may instead be transmaxxing--which would cast Robinson's involvement and actions in a completely different light. Transmaxx is a kind of nihilist incel culture--it has nothing to do with right wing or left wing.

From the outset, Kirk's murder gave off more of a "school shooter" vibe to me than a political one. That still appears to be what we're dealing with--it was not a political assassination in the sense the MARARINO's are so desperately trying to portray it.

[Bunny495]

Putting aside the fact that the weapon is a little over one meter in length while hitting targets at 1,000 meters is a tall (but not impossible for a select few) order the chances of success drops dramatically once you get past even a couple of hundred meters. As a general rule an accurate rifle is said to have a one MOA (Minute Of Angle). While not exact one MOA at a 100 yards means the bullet will land in a little over a one inch circle, with 200 yards a two inch circle and so on so at 1,000 yards a ten circle. Not to mention the effect of things like wind, humidity, temperature, and even the Coriolis Effect greatly increase with the distance. Of course for guys like me (and most other serious long range shooters) use the metric system and Milliradian, commonly referred to as a “Mil” or an “MRAD" instead of MOA in our dope book.

Bottom line is while most decent shooters will be accurate at under two hundred yards hitting something at 1,000 yards requires a skill set few possess.

[Commenter_XY]

And now, a walk on the macabre side of the aisle....

Political assassination as a tool of influence (terror) is now entrenched in America. Whether it is gunning down Christians in churches, schools; or murdering speakers at a political rally...It is real, and it is happening in front of our eyes.

Who should now worry about the assassins bullet?

Obviously, POTUS Trump and his Cabinet There have been two assassination attempts on POTUS Trump's life in the last year. A USSS agent was just suspended for glorifying Kirk's assassination. Can the USSS be trusted? That there are even questions about the USSS is horrifying.

There are many 'political firebrands' on the Left; Omar, Tlaib, Khanna, Jayapal, Murphy (just to name a few). Should they be concerned? I think, perhaps they should. We already know there are homicidal crazies on the Left, btw, the Right is not immune to this. The crazies on the Right have guns, too.

American society is untethered from the Judeo-Christian values that made us the greatest nation history has ever known. Our civic behavior is a reflection of this.

As for Tyler Robinson, he gets the needle, gas or firing squad.

[John F. Carr]

According to an assassination expert, assassinations come in waves.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-why-charlie-kirks-killing-could-embolden-more-political-violence

The wave will probably end. I am more worried about the rise of AI meaning we never know what's real.

[Sarcastr0]

American society is untethered from the Judeo-Christian values that made us the greatest nation history has ever known. Our civic behavior is a reflection of this.

No, we've had plenty of assassination when we were bible thumping to the max.

Amazing to see Commenter morph into an evangelical scold.

I'm a Christian, and I further think faith has amazing potential to bring out the best in an individual, as well as act as a balm in their lowest moments.
It can also bring out the worst in someone - smothering their moral impulses in righteousness. And twist a dark time into a cause to inflict that misery on others.

America's Great Awakenings have plenty of both sides of the coin in them.
But these days the rhetoric of revival is more purely partisan than anything else. It comes from the subset of churches that have embraced political power, and twisted their faith accordingly.

If anyone needs to return to our judeo-Christian values, it's those places; and leave their theocracy behind.

[windycityattorney]

It doesn't help that the IRS has now said they won't enforce a rule about churches making political endorsements. So i can see churches being tied to PAC's in the near future or being paid to endorse political candidates and it devolving into a 'this candidate is chosen by the church' and idiots misinterpreting that to "this candidate is therefore god's chosen candidate' and further... the opponent of the Church's choice is against God (i.e, evil). And what do we do to evil? Do we not try to eradicate it?

[Malika la Maize]

Good points, this is a big reason why people proposed separating church and state-it would corrupt churches.

[Krayt]

That is not a concern of yours. Your concern is using taxation to harm religion for having the temerity to speak out on political issues and candidates.

There is nothing noble about that sentiment. It only ever has been about speech suppression.

[Krayt]

Hell, it doesn't even pass the least interfering method test, whatever that is called. If corruption of religion is your concern, apply other, or new laws to it. Transparency even, if you think there's funny business.

I make no judgement on the propriety or effectiveness of other approaches, and, quite frankly, even wondering about it ignores the real impetus, to harm and silence religion grrrr grrrrr grrr.

[Malika la Maize]

You think Jefferson and Madison wanted to use taxation to harm religion for having the temerity to speak out on political issues and candidates?

[Krayt]

They could be as innocent as the wind. Modern politicians, not so much.

"Haha, laws of general applicability, kick religion in the nuts!"

For that matter, it's perfectly reasonable for The People to tell their politicians hands off anything that hampers religion. Religious freedom is about it not gaining legal ascendancy. "We get to kick it in the nuts with taxation if they speak against us!" is a sordid sentiment at best, and foreign to both freedom of religion and free speech.

[Kazinski]

Massachusetts had an established church until 1833, so it was hardly a bedrock precept of the founders that church and state be separated.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not looking forwards to even more religious zealots pushing for theocratic bullshit via our elected leaders.

We're also going to have a ton of religious institutions corrupted by their focus on rendering unto Caesar. You can already see that happening.

It's a hollowing out of the good things deep faith brings into something much more shallow and worldly. It calls itself faith, but it's not.
Just another way the right is making us a worse culture and a worse country.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It doesn't help that the IRS has now said they won't enforce a rule about churches making political endorsements. "

To say that this rule was always constitutionally suspect is putting it mildly. It's probably also worth noting that it was always very selectively enforced, as well.

[bernard11]

To say that this rule was always constitutionally suspect is putting it mildly.

Why is that? Contributions to candidates, PAC's, political organizations, etc. are not tax-deductible. If a church decides to start endorsing candidates and whatnot why should it be treated any differently than other political organizations? Why would that be unconstitutional?

(Yes, the rules are very selectively enforced, mostly to the benefit of the right.)

[Martinned]

So where are we on women voting? For or against?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-influencer-maga-son-says-162428178.html

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You'll forgive me if I don't get too worked up about what some actor's son nobody (except you and The Independent, apparently) thinks about...well...anything.

[Malika la Maize]

“Sorbo, who promotes pro-Trump views to his audience of more than 1 million on TikTok”

You have to forgive Wuzzy, a million is an awful big number for a dull guy to contemplate.

[Jazzizhep]

Kevin Sorbo =/= Kevin’s son

You might have a point if daddy said it to his one million followers.

[Malika la Maize]

OMG, were you dropped on your head as a kid? It’s ok if you were but no one told you to stop being so confident?

https://www.tiktok.com/@braedensorbo?lang=en?platform=yahoous&articleId=b2823946

This is the link from the article about a million.

[Jazzizhep]

You’re the one who used Sorbo’s one million followers to suggest a wide swath of conservatives believes what his son says.

I don’t need to read a different cite to rebut what you originally cited, cupcake.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You have to forgive Wuzzy, a million is an awful big number for a dull guy to contemplate.

You throw a lot of stones for someone who is constantly exposed as an ignorance-spewing simpleton. And no, less that 0.001% of just the English-speaking world (as in, the World Wide Web) is not that significant...especially on TikTok, where there is whole host of people you and most others have never heard of that have "followers" numbering in the 10s of millions (up to 161.4 million for "Khaby Lame", a Senegalese/Italian "influencer").

[Martinned]

He's a professional influencer. He wouldn't say such a thing unless he thought he could make money off it. The first predictable consequence of saying such a thing is that people like me get angry. But that's difficult to monetize. So the monetization strategy must rely on people like you doing...?

[damikesc]

My, that DOES sound relevant.

[Malika la Maize]

You have to love him posting this after I addressed it from Wuzzy. You can’t fault dami’s effort, just his intelligence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your "address" of that was even dumber than your original post.

[damikesc]

It takes some work for Malika to write anything "dumber" than they wrote previously.

[Jazzizhep]

No, for it to be relevant the person who actually said it needs to have one million followers.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think only women should be allowed to vote. Let's see how that shakes out.

[ducksalad]

We could alternate. To make it more interesting, only male candidates when women vote, and only female candidates when men vote.

[bernard11]

Wow. That guy is a piece of work. What a jackass. One million followers? Astonishing and frightening.

[Martinned]

Another question in the news today: Is the US Regime going to punish Brazil for the criminal verdict against an accused insurrectionist?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3yxkkdlkvo

[ducksalad]

Actually the ones punished will be Americans, specifically those who want to buy Brazilian goods.

Also American air passengers in the long run, as airlines will be effectively barred from buying the most popular line of mid-sized airliners.

[Krayt]

I wonder. Had Bolsonaro succeeded in his coup, would Trump have levied the tariffs?

[Martinned]

In Ireland people are still jostling to get the necessary nominations to get on the Presidential ballot. This morning the news came in that Conor McGregor has withdrawn from the election. (I.e. he accepts that he won't be able to get the necessary nominations, and is going to stop trying.)

https://www.rte.ie/news/presidential-election/2025/0915/1533497-presidential-race-ireland/

To be eligible to run, a candidate must be nominated either by 20 members of the Oireachtas or four local authorities. They must also be an Irish citizen over the age of 35.

The main political parties of Ireland (Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Sinn Féin) either have a nominee already, or are in the process of agreeing one.

Former government minister Heather Humphreys is running for Fine Gael in the 24 October election while ex-Dublin Gaelic football manager Jim Gavin is the Fianna Fáil candidate. Mr Gavin is due to attend a parliamentary party meeting in Cork today.

Yesterday, Independent presidential candidate Catherine Connolly said she would be "delighted" if Sinn Féin backed her campaign, when it clarifies its position next Saturday.

Ms Connolly currently has the backing of the Social Democrats, Labour, People Before Profit-Solidarity and some Independents.

Since 1990, when Mary Robinson was elected to the office, Ireland has had an extraordinary string of Presidents. Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese, and now Michael D. Higgins, have been widely beloved by the people, in part because all three had an exemplary record of civic virtue. Of course not being part of day-to-day politics helps with that, but these presidents didn't just talk the talk (which is rare enough already), but they also walked the walk.

[DaveM]

It barely registers as worthy of coverage by the corporate press, but there's a burgeoning separatist movement growing in Alberta, Canada. The independence movement seems pretty serious, with a proposed government structure, a proposed budget, and an upcoming referendum. Given the heavy restrictions placed on Alberta's economic development by the federal government -- Pacific ocean ports closed to gas and oil shipments; cancellations of oil pipelines; targeted emissions restrictions on oil and gas producers, but not on other extraction industries -- I think the province might get a plurality of voters to choose independence, but likely not a majority.

Sources:

- Alberta Prosperity Project: https://albertaprosperity.com
- Alberta's New Separatists, Maclean's Magazine: https://macleans.ca/longforms/albertas-new-separatists/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I've been following that story for the past few weeks, and am surprised (though I shouldn't be, given the state of "journalism" today) that it isn't receiving more MSM coverage. I'm skeptical of it actually resulting in the cessation of one or more provinces, simply because it's such a drastic solution to the issues that are driving it. But I'm also not convinced that it won't. At a minimum it deserves attention just by virtue of the fact that it's gotten this far.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

cessation

Oops. "Secession". Hookt on Fonics.

[ducksalad]

Canada's a bit unique since it's Supreme Court has ruled there can be referenda and the federal government is obliged to negotiate (but is not bound to concede) if a referendum passes with an unambiguous majority.

But still not very likely. Referendum not even scheduled, as I understand it. It has minority support inside Alberta, plurality doesn't win. The whole thing could be defused by a different party winning the national election or some concessions on energy and export regulations. If the central government played hardball in negotiations you'd be facing closed borders on three sides with the fourth side controlled by an unpredictable geezer that breaks promises, turns against allies, and imposes 50% tariffs on impulse. And if push comes to shove, plenty of respectable countries ignore their own courts, constitutions, and agreements when it comes to losing big chunks of territory.

[Malika la Maize]

The Trump administration has unveiled a pilot program to accelerate the use of electric air taxis, a move aimed at establishing U.S. dominance in airspace technology.

The Department of Transportation on Friday said the Federal Aviation Administration's Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Integration Pilot Program (eIPP) will develop "new frameworks and regulations for enabling safe operations" and form partnerships with private sector companies as well as with state and local governments.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5540722/faa-air-taxi-pilot-program

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got personal doubts about the viability of air taxis, (Though I do have some engineering ideas about how to solve some of the problems.) but I think the potential for use as ambulances is fantastic.

[Malika la Maize]

Agreed.

[Bunny495]

I saw enough medivac choppers in the Nam to wonder what advantage a flying car would have.

[Krayt]

The idea would be a dronelike multi-rotor device, computer controlled. You get in, and it flies you safely to your destination.

Taxis? It'll be personal air cars.

Abandon the stupidities of little winged planes and full helicopters serving as such things.

The future is now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you really think there is enough airspace to support flying cars?
I'd much prefer the "electricity too cheap to meter".

[shawn_dude]

If you haven't yet, look into New Zealand's use of helicopters. They supposedly have more copters per capita than any other country. They even use them as air taxis (for the wealthy, naturally.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't sound very green.

[Bunny495]

Where are the flying cars I was promised in the 1950s? Asking for a friend.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think Avery Brooks said it best 25 years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo

[Magister]

I strongly suspect there is not much more Lotus Software from IBM than flying cars.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Probably, but still...most things sound cooler when said by guys with voices like Avery Brooks', James Earl Jones' (RIP) or Dennis Haysbert's.

[not guilty]

I have been trying to figure out whether, based on what information is publicly available so far, the assassination of Charlie Kirk constitutes a federal crime. To this point I haven't thought of a federal criminal statute that would apply.

The murder did not occur within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, so 18 U.S.C. § 1111 would not apply.

I haven't seen evidence that the assassin targeted Mr. Kirk because of his actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, so 18 U.S.C. § 249 would not apply.

The assassin did not travel in interstate or foreign commerce, so 18 U.S.C. § 2261A would not apply. (This is one of the federal statutes under which Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted.)

The site of the shooting was not a school which provides elementary or secondary education per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(27), so 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) would not apply.

Does anyone else have any thoughts here?

[Michael P]

Targeting Kirk because of his religious beliefs about transgender individuals is targeting him because of his religion.

[not guilty]

That is horseshit.

[ThePublius]

I don't agree. I think it makes total sense. He was a religious figure, and he was assassinated for espousing his religious views.

[Martinned]

I assume a petition to make him a saint is already underway?

[Sarcastr0]

He was a religious figure

TP continues to deliver, folks!

He was religious, and he was a public figure. That does not make him a religious figure.

The damage some are willing to do to their ostensible religion to push their politics is amazing.
Part of why the Founders were no fans of theocracy was the damage political power does to religious institutions.

[ThePublius]

So, you have some defintion of "religious figure" that negates what I said? Care to share that definition?

[Sarcastr0]

A religious figure is one holding a position of *spiritual* leadership. People didn't look to Kirk to tell them how to pray or whatnot, they looked to him for political arguments and positions.

Though I know some are working hard to elide the distinction, it's really important to tell the difference between politics and religion!

[Jazzizhep]

Did he not offer interpretations of religious text? He drew thousands of people to hear him. I think that makes him a religious leader not just a figure.

You keep stating a theocracy is religion engaging in politics. Which is the reason the founders were against the establishment of a religion. It corrupts religion.

Churches engaging in politics is not the same as the state basing the government on religion and enforcing a specific religious doctrine.

The founders were mostly thinking of the Catholic Church and more specifically the Church of England.

Churches have always been involved in politics. And if multiple religions and denominations engage in politics it can’t possibly be a theocracy or establishment of a religion.

What you seem to imply is any political opinions publicly expressed based on religious beliefs is bad for religion and the state. Absurd.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of people listened to him as a *conservative*. If you can't see the difference between conservative and Christian, there are lots of conservative atheists around here who might take issue.

Theocracy isn't religion engaging in politics; it's on religion dictating politics. A theocrat is someone who seeks that end.

Churches engaging in politics will inevitably find their spiritual mission being overcome by temporal matters. Religion can absolutely inform politics, and political issues can inform and suggest questions of faith. But these political churches are sacrificing their mission.

The founders were mostly thinking of the Catholic Church and more specifically the Church of England.
Were they? Lots of counterexamples to this, including the text of the Constitution itself which is not so limited.
-Pennsylvania. The whole thing, and it's early advocacy. Not Anglican or Catholic!!
-Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists
-Jefferson and the Virginia Statute (of note: "God who gives man the freedom to believe or not to believe is also the God of the Christian sects...")
-Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance.

What you seem to imply
Is something you made up. Yeah, it's absurd. Above, I wrote a whole political post that starts 'I'm a Christian' which directly contradicts what you think I seem to imply.

[Jazzizhep]

You still imply it when you say the church involved in politics is a theocracy. It doesn’t matter what you are.

I am atheist that had a strong Southern Baptist upbringing. My dad is a deacon and my brother is a pastor. I don’t tell them, not because I am embarrassed, but because they would worry until my dying day about my soul.

Even as an atheist, I still think religious people and institutions have just as much right to free speech as the next person. Ya know, like painting a high school parking space

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't said anything about free speech here.

I don't think tax exempt status must apply to organizations that exist to make political endorsements.
I share that opinion with longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

I don't care for Christianity being suborned for political ends. You seem a lot more sanguine about the idea.

[Jazzizhep]

You have said it several times; not only here but previously. Obviously not a direct quote. Nobody is that dumb.

Explicitly said it when a Christian shouldn’t be able to paint a parking spot because of the Establishment Clause.

And again, you keep saying it creates a theocracy to allow religion and religious people like Kirk to be involved in politics. Absurd.

If the Founders were so worried about politics corrupting religion through politics or even vice versa, they should have said something. They didn’t. They only mention establishing as a problem. Of course “corrupting” is subjective. What you call corrupting I call the will of the electorate. Even if they happen to be religious.

[bernard11]

I still think religious people and institutions have just as much right to free speech as the next person. Ya know, like painting a high school parking space

So do I. But I don't see what it is you are upset about. I think religious people and organizations should have the same rights as others, but not be privileged.

[not guilty]

Uh, "offer[ing] interpretations of religious text" hardly indicates that the offeror is a religious leader. I have pointed out before in these comment threads that the Hebrew Bible (a/k/a the Old Testament) portrays Yahweh as the most wicked villain in literature, what with his committing multiple mass murders, commanding genocide and endorsing slavery.

Does that make me a religious leader?

[Jazzizhep]

Coupled with millions of people coming to see him does. I said that in my comment.

What can’t you people grasp?

[bernard11]

What you seem to imply is any political opinions publicly expressed based on religious beliefs is bad for religion and the state. Absurd.

No. The discussion is not about opinions but about the quest for power.

[ThePublius]

"A religious figure is an individual or entity holding significant importance or authority within a faith community, often characterized by leadership, guidance, and the performance of religious duties. Examples include priests, ministers, and spiritual leaders who provide guidance and support to followers and are sometimes recognized for their profound spiritual knowledge or connection to the divine.
Key aspects of a religious figure
Leadership and Authority:
They often hold positions of authority within a religious organization or community, such as a priest, rabbi, imam, or guru.
Guidance and Care:
Religious figures are responsible for guiding and caring for their followers, providing spiritual direction and support.
Religious Duties:
They are authorized to perform religious duties and make judgments, playing a crucial role in the practice and interpretation of their faith.
Spiritual Importance:
Figures like prophets or influential teachers are recognized for their significant contributions, impactful messages, or deep spiritual insight.
Community Role:
They serve as vital sources of information and direction, especially during times of uncertainty, highlighting the role of religion in providing societal guidance.
Examples:
Common titles include priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, imam, prophet, spiritual leader, and monk, all of whom embody religious authority and devotion."

Charlie Kirk was a Christian Nationalist community of faith leader. That makes him a religious figure.

[Malika la Maize]

You think he was equivalent to a priest, rabbi, iman or guru? Come on. Like Sarc said he was a religious guy and a public figure. I guess you think Trump is a religious figure? Mike Johnson? MTG?

[ThePublius]

He was an evangelical Christian Nationalist. I don't see him as a political figure; he never ran for office, and as far as I know never expressed an interest in running for office. Do you think all this Christian Nationalist stuff and all that praying was just a side gig? Geez. Is the Rev. Al Sharpton a religious figure or a political figure? Was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King a religious figure or a political figure? (Hint: check their titles.) For that matter, are political figure and religious figure mutually exclusive?

Here's a pertinent article, excerpted here:

"In 2021, he launched TPUSA Faith, in partnership with California pastor Rob McCoy. The initiative promised to “push back against secular totalitarianism in America, eradicate wokeism from the church, inspire the rise of strong churches, and wake up believers to their biblical responsibility to fight for freedom.”"

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/charlie-kirk-from-secular-activist-to-christian-nationalist-icon/

[Malika la Maize]

Hint: check their titles. They were all reverends. I guess that’s why you elided my question.

Mark Wahlberg created a religious organization, do you think he’s a religious figure? Come on, give it up.

[not guilty]

If Jesus the Christ were living in America today, he would likely grab a scourge and drive self-styled "Christian Nationalists" out of their houses of worship.

When I joined the Democratic Party in 1974, I was a Bible thumping, fundamentalist Christian. (I am still a Christian believer, but my karma ran over my dogma.) It didn't take a great deal of reflection to realize that I wanted no part of any political party that would nominate a scoundrel such as Prick Nixon five times.

In this century, the GOP has done even worse -- three separate Republican National Conventions have nominated Donald Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why the hard on for Nixon? What did he do that affected your teenage or younger self?

[Frank Drackman]

And how did Nixon win 49 States? Nobody you knew voted for him!

[Jazzizhep]

So now you speak Jesus. Wow!

[Sarcastr0]

Every Protestant gets to speak Jesus.

There was a whole thing about it some time ago.

[Jazzizhep]

You think those are the only religious figures or leaders?

[Sarcastr0]

Christian nationalism, apart from being profoundly anti-American and corrosive to our pluralistic republic, is not a unified faith.

It describes a particular ideological aspect to a whole bunch of institutions, some secular some religious.

[ThePublius]

You don't have to be a leader in a "unified faith" to be a religious leader.

[Sarcastr0]

Already shifting from religious figure to religious leader, I see.

[ThePublius]

What's the difference?

[Sarcastr0]

It's frustrating because these terms don't seem to show up in dictionaries much.

So I expect you to take issue just out of shear cussedness, but here goes:

Anyone with a formal role on the faith-based side of any religious institution is a religious leader.

A religious figure has influence based on their informally perceived spiritual insight or wisdom.

[Jazzizhep]

Sarcrasto, you thinking the bar for “leader” is somehow being lowered from “figure” is hilarious. That’s moving the goal posts back, not changing the difficulty to make it easier.

I guess you’re thinking religious leaders aren’t religious figures. To quote Steely Dan, “Pretzel Logic.”

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, man.

The efforts to retroactively turn Kirk into a protestant martyr-saint are going to get pretty intense, pretty transparently partisan, and pretty purely political.

I expect stories of Satanists converting once they heard of Kirk's Good Word and Death to start popping up any day now.

[Jazzizhep]

Your fantasies aside, you are the one who said calling someone a religious leader is different than a religious figure (moving the goal posts). It is, but only by degrees and not in your favor.

You could have a semantical argument that might be defensible if the terms were reversed. But alas, you do not.

In short, all religious leaders are religious figures. Not all religious figures are religious leaders. Get it yet?

[Sarcastr0]

He wasn't a religious figure, or a religious leader. TP is mushy on his definitions because he's partisan first thesis second.

I did my semantic argument above; you may not have read it.

So no, I'm not going to go over it again. Especially when it all looks to me like an outcome-oriented exercise to get ammo to do terrible authoritarian things.

[Jazzizhep]

Yes, you’ve gone over your losing argument quite enough.

I don’t think you get to determine who is a religious leader to other people.

If hundreds of thousands (conservative) of people think he is a religious leader/figure, they trump your feelz.

[shawn_dude]

"Christian" is a faith. "Nationalism" is politics. Christian Nationalists are aiming to assert political power over people who do not share their beliefs. It is, at its core, an anti-American, political movement.

[Jazzizhep]

They do that by voting for the candidates that share their values. I guess voting is now nationalistic and anti-American.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess voting is now nationalistic and anti-American.

So voting for a Nazi is cool and pro-America? Methinks you did a fallacy!

[Martinned]

Or a peek into how Michael views his Trumpism...

[Malika la Maize]

A stretch worthy of Plastic Man.

[Sarcastr0]

Even beyond the trying to shoehorn faith into this, we don't have the shooter's motives yet. This is what, the third attempt by the conservatives to push a motive?

My prediction (warning: vibes coming!) is that in a week or so this will all end up with an inchoate 'the tone on the left made this happen' and the right will pretend they always thought that.

[Don Nico]

Oh oh. Sarc's "vibes" are back.

But I must agree with calling Kirk a "religious figure" or leader is nonsense. He was a political activist.
Like ng, I also don't see what would make his assassination a federal crime. Utah is perfectly able to bring him before a firing squad.

[bernard11]

If by "targeting" you mean "criticizing" that's just silly.

If you express some belief, it can be criticized. Claiming it's based on religion doesn't get you an exemption.

[Brett Bellmore]

The state of Utah seems unlikely to go easy on the killer, and there is a death penalty in Utah, so the motive for a federal prosecution seems somewhat lacking.

But, if they really wanted to, why not Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights? It seems likely the killer had at least SOME help, from accounts, so conspiracy, and the motive was to go after Kirk for protected speech, so it was a conspiracy against rights.

[not guilty]

Who do you posit were Tyler Robinson's co-conspirators, if any? Section 241 is not a mere aiding and abetting statute. A conviction thereunder would require that all conspirators had the specific intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate Mr. Kirk in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised such right(s).

A specific intent to interfere with the federal right must be proved. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 760 (1966), citing Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 106-107 (1945). The predominant purpose of such a conspiracy must be to impede or prevent the exercise of a federal constitutional right, or to oppress a person because of his exercise of that right. Id., at 360.

IOW, "It seems likely the killer had at least SOME help" doesn't feed the bulldog.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would not know their names, but news reports have him communicating with somebody else on Discord in planning the assassination. That was the basis of my remark.

It would, of course, have to be proven in court to obtain a conviction, but that's enough of a hook for the feds to base an investigation on.

[Michael P]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/exclusive-fbi-investigating-social-media-accounts-that-appeared-to-indicate-foreknowledge-of-kirk-assassination/ appears to have receipts on this point.

[not guilty]

Did you read your own linked article, Michael P? In particular, the paragraph which states:

While the posts do not establish that any of the individuals knew or conspired with Robinson, the 22-year-old gunman who allegedly shot Kirk, several of them mention the conservative activist by name and fantasize about his death.

Charlie Kirk was likely a reviled figure in some LGTB circles.

Water, BTW, is wet.

[Michael P]

There's not immediate incontrovertible proof, so we better stop looking (lest we find proof), according to bot guilty in a 180-degree reversal from how he treats conservatives.

[bernard11]

"news reports." Care to link to any of them?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know that post-assasination assistance is enough to promote it to conspiracy, but it turns out that George Zinn, the guy who originally was arrested as the shooter, had been deliberately acting to give the real killer a better chance to escape.

But, really, I had this in mind:

"Investigators say the suspect allegedly exchanged messages with someone on the social media platform Discord before the shooting."

Of course, the original coverage is getting pretty hard to find in the flood of subsequent reports, but there were initial reports.

[Stephen Lathrop]

There was an obvious rush to get the assassination tagged as terrorism. I assumed that was intended to give the feds a hook to hang a federal prosecution on.

[Don Nico]

I agree Stephen. It is just another example of Fed overreach.

[shawn_dude]

Or to go further, a la Erdoğan, and use this as a pretense for federal agents to sweep into liberal political organizations in search of "terrorists" and damage the opposition party in the run-up to midterm elections.

[Commenter_XY]

Deprivation of civil rights.

[Sarcastr0]

Would that logic apply to every murder committed in the US?

[not guilty]

XY, how did Tyler Robinson act under color of law, per 18 U.S.C. § 242?

[Kazinski]

Try 18 U.S. Code § 245 - Federally protected activities

(E)participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or

Speaking on a public university campus as part of a sanctioned student activity should suffice.

[not guilty]

What leads you to think that any sanctioning student organization was receiving federal financial assistance, Kazinski?

[Kazinski]

The University was. He was using University facilities.

At least some of the students were using federal student loans or getting federal grants.

[not guilty]

Neither the university nor any of its students is a "program or activity," Kazinski.

[Kazinski]

The University certainly is a program or activity, and having outside speakers is long been considered a core activity of a University.

Plus there were a substantial number of students attending that receive federal Pell Grants or other federal grants that had their civil rights infringed by not be able hear the speaker the were peacefully assembled to hear.

I don't think its even a close case under current federal law, even though I have said before that I don't think the federal government should be able to prosecute crimes that don't directly impact enumerated federal responsibilities.

[not guilty]

No, Kazinski, Utah Valley University is a freestanding, self-perpetuating institution of higher education maintained and established by the State of Utah and governed by the Utah System of Higher Education, not "a program or activity."

You are right, however, that this isn't even a close case under current federal law. Federal criminal statutes must be construed strictly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_construction

[John F. Carr]

It is likely that he passed within 1,000 feet of a school while carrying a weapon that was not locked up. There is a high school less than a mile away and more schools within two miles. Did he know he passed through a school zone? Did he have a license to carry a long gun? Not "was it legal?" Did he have a license?

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
[...]
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

[not guilty]

The gravamen of that offense is possession of the firearm, not the discharging thereof. My inquiry is about the assassination itself.

To discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A), but the term “school zone” means — (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school, per § 921(a)(26), and "school" there is defined by § 921(a)(27) to mean a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

[Life of Brian]

To this point I haven't thought of a federal criminal statute that would apply.

Maybe you just need another cup of coffee. After watching your abilities over the past several years to bend the vaguest of language in the recesses of the U.S. Code to your service against the target du jour, there's not a shred of doubt in my mind you can come through for us here.

[Malika la Maize]

I like that Bri Bri concedes it would take what he sees as very motivated reasoning here.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently the shiny new moniker has had no positive effect on your inclination to debate in anything resembling good faith. I had optimistically thought you actually might have been turning over a new leaf rather than just playing mute evasion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The site of the shooting was not a school which provides elementary or secondary education per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(27), "

Wrong -- it has a dual enrollment program with high schools and thus provides some "secondary education."

I believe he was on the roof of a building housing a Post Office.

Kirk had traveled in interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta rationale.

Program receiving Federal assistance?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I have been trying to figure out whether, based on what information is publicly available so far, the assassination of Charlie Kirk constitutes a federal crime.

First, a general sentiment -- I personally think murders should generally be state crimes. We federalize these things too much.

“Right now, based on the facts I’m aware of, I don’t see an obvious federal crime,” said Mary McCord, a longtime federal prosecutor and former acting head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “Of course, there’s hate crimes that sometimes can be applicable, but not for politics.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-shooting-charges-00562621

The article also notes that a state trial here would be televised.

[William of Brooklyn]

18 U.S.C. § 2331. Domestic terrorism, which I think rightly applies whenever a domestic murder occurs with the intention to cower a political group or alter a political outcome.

[not guilty]

Section 2331 is a statute setting forth various definitions to be used in that chapter, but it creates no substantive criminal offense.

And when it comes to determining whether conduct is or is not criminalized, the phrase "I think" is about as useful as tits on a boar.

[William of Brooklyn]

not guilty - You're quite right on the statute I cited merely being definitional. However, you're quite mistaken about the "I think" thing. "I think" is the basis of all case law/common law; it just has to be a judge who thinks it.

[Sarcastr0]

NG - I looked up the federal charges Luigi faces.

The interstate stalking charges probably don't apply, but 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) looks on point.

[Malika la Maize]

A recent Redfin survey asked people who were planning to buy a home in the next year what they required in a home and what they’d be “willing to trade off.” More than one in five respondents (22 percent) said they were willing to sacrifice personal safety, while nearly 30 percent said they were willing to compromise on living in an area with a low crime rate.

But even if a fifth of buyers said they were willing to overlook it, safety still topped the list of new home must-haves, the survey found, with 78 percent of respondents saying it was nonnegotiable, and 74 percent saying that buying in a low-crime area was nonnegotiable. Living in an area with low risk for natural disaster was the third most popular must-have, though about a third of respondents said they were willing to compromise on that, too. Coming in fourth, with 67 percent of respondents unwilling to sacrifice it: access to grocery stores.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/realestate/buying-homes-must-have-features.html

Interestingly being in a good school district ranked rather low, surprised by that (but perhaps a methodology thing).

[Brett Bellmore]

We had 4 criteria, which thankfully did not conflict:

1. Good school district
2. Low crime rate
3. Fire place
4. Tree with tree house potential

Of course, 1 and 2 traded off, because we weren't about to move into some hellhole just to get a slightly better school.

In the end, we found a house that checked all our boxes, 3 fireplaces, a little rural pocket where we could have livestock, nice school district. Then it rained heavily a couple weeks before the closing, and a week before we did our walk through... And the house had flooded, just a couple inches in the basement, but black mold throughout. So we bailed, and got no argument about it.

Only by then our apartment had been promised to somebody else, and we had a hard deadline for moving out, and had to settle on someplace else really fast. Still, it did check all the boxes, and was actually a bit cheaper. Just needed a bit of work before we moved in.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, I think 1 and 2 are bound to intermix. As we’re both commuters we also wanted to be somewhat, but not too close, to the interstate. Luckily we got that.

[Brett Bellmore]

We would have loved to have bought a stone house, both I and my wife admire them, but the one we found in our price range... When we checked the crime map, the screen was nothing but flags, you couldn't see anything else.

Our present house is in a quiet old residential neighborhood, a few blocks from a police station, very low crime rate, no through traffic. An overgrown utility corridor behind us, and a flood zone lot next to us, we have a very private backyard. I wouldn't have minded more room for a garden, but as I said, we picked it out in a rush.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to wonder about the idea of a low crime rate for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that you really can't tell about crime. I can think of a neighbor that developed a drug problem and was convicted of embezzling from his company. Another middleclass professional man beat his wife to death in their house. A few blocks from me a despondent sat in his car took the life of his handicapped child and then himself. I don't think anyone in my neighborhood would ever be concerned about crime in the area.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually you can, at a statistical level, tell about crime. Crime rates persistently vary by location by multiple orders of magnitude, in a fairly fine grained way.

[ducksalad]

That is true. But for violent crime, it's like the death rate from heat stroke being orders of magnitude higher in Arizona than Pennsylvania. First, it's just plain unlikely in either place, second, your own behavior has much more effect than location. The reason is there are very few career murderers.

Property crime is different because there are plenty of career thieves and they have preferred hunting grounds that are, as you say, fine grained. Current neighborhood in Edinburg we leave bikes unlocked and visible from the street, haven't lost one in 25 years. Old place in Austin the mean lifetime of an unlocked bike was about a week.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the total likelihood is pretty low in ALMOST any given location, and even in a dangerous neighborhood, remains well below 50% unless you're doing something stupid to contribute to it, like shacking up with a criminal.

But yes, violent crime too varies drastically from place to place, in a persistent manner.

The Law of Crime Concentration

"Criminologist, David Weisburd, first proposed a formal "law of crime concentration" in 2015 after having observed the phenomenon across many cities.[1] In their longitudinal study of street segments in Seattle, WA, Weisburd and colleagues (2012) observed not only that crime was concentrated, but across a 16-year observation period the level of concentration was remarkedly consistent: 50% of crime incidents were found at between 4.7% and 6.1% of street segments in the city each year, despite a decline of more than 20% in overall crime during that period.[3] To test whether the law of crime concentration existed in other cities, Weisburd examined 8 additional cities in 2015. While noting variability between the five larger and three smaller cities, the overall range or bandwidth of crime concentrations observed was between 2.1% and 6.0% of streets producing 50% of city crime, and between 0.4% and 1.6% producing 25% of city crime, which supported a law of crime concentration across cities."

"Gill and colleagues (2017) tested the law of crime concentration in the suburban city of Brooklyn Park, MN and found that two percent of street segments produced 50% of the crime over the study period and 0.4% of segments produced 25% of the crime."

So, the upshot is that if you pay attention to crime records when house hunting, and exclude just a few percent of the territory from your search, you can almost totally eliminate your risk of crime.

[shawn_dude]

I was also thinking that "safety" is subjective. For example, immigrant neighborhoods traditionally have very low crime rates but might be viewed as "unsafe" to some for a variety of reasons. Black Americans might not feel "safe" in an all-white neighborhood. There's some data that suggests that Black professional who could afford nicer neighborhoods may choose to live in poorer majority-Black neighborhoods regardless.

"Safety" can mean a lot more than just crime rates.

[Moderation4ever]

I think what you say is really true. People can be perfectly safe and yet feel very uncomfortable and think that what they are feeling is less safe.

[ducksalad]

It isn't just probability of the event, which is objective, it's how much you dislike the event, and that's a matter of opinion.

Some people think being killed for their money is not as bad as being killed for their ethnicity. Others think being killed by an immigrant is much worse than being killed by a native-born citizen.
They might not say it explicitly but it's revealed in their outrage levels.

In particular, it's very common to dislike a physical or financial injury from a crime much more than an equivalent injury from an accident.

[shawn_dude]

Some people might think immigrants are criminals by default and therefore living among them is risky.

(That statement sounds crazy but one quick scan of the news shows that at least a third of Americans believe that and support the current administration targeting legal and illegal immigrants.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but perhaps a methodology thing

The article is behind a paywall so I don't know if it says anything at all about the age and marital status of those polled, but I would wonder if it weren't overly skewed toward older home buyers or something like that. And with all polls, I think one needs to know how it's questions were worded. The following...

More than one in five respondents (22 percent) said they were willing to sacrifice personal safety, while nearly 30 percent said they were willing to compromise on living in an area with a low crime rate.

...strikes me as an odd result, given that I'd expect those two things to be nearly identical.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, for sissies like you a high crime rate would make you hide under the kitchen table and cry, only eating by getting your mother to order out for you and then rushing to lock the door and returning to your cringing position.

Some people might think they won’t be targets.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Thanks for continuing to prove my previous comments about you.

[damikesc]

Avoiding murder and rape is the move of the pussy, it seems.

You go be brave, Malika.

[ReaderY]

It is now clear that in its rush to find an excuse to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the Trump Administration fell totally on its face, finding entries made by her banks in a federal database and falsely representing them, without so much as even bothering to check, to be statements made by her to the banks.

Despite being aware of its negligence, the Trump Administration is doubling down and persisting in its efforts to pretend there is cause to fire her.

It seems to me that separately from whether there should be sanctions for representing the existence of cause without having conducted the most basic of fact-checking in the first place, lawyers who persist in the charade from here on, now that it’s clear the claimed misconduct is totally bogus, really need to be heavily sanctioned. They are filing frivolous papers in the complete absence of any merit in the hopes they can delay the case past this week’s Open Market Committee meeting. Whether or not New York real estate developers should be permitted such tactics with impunity, lawyers representing the President of the United States should not be.

I would impose very heavy, send-them-a-lesson sanctions here - Ms. Cook should get the equivalent of her salary for her entire remaining term as a monetary sanction, her lawyers ahould get all their legal fees, and the lawyers who persisted after it became clear the administration’s claim she committed fraud was completely bogus should be barred from practicing before federal courts for years.

This kind of behavior cannot be countenanced. Lawyers who assist the administration in attempts to defraud the courts for illegitimate purposes need to be made to understand that they will have to find another line of work other than law.

A precedent has to be set that this behavior absolutely will not be tolerated. The courts need to come down very, very hard.

Frankly, things have reached a point where licensed attorneys should not be permitted to accept the government’s word without conducting their own investigation. There has to be a CREDIBLE basis for representations a lawyer makes in court.

[loki13]

The appalling conduct of DOJ attorneys brought in by this administration is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. Anyone who has had experience litigating against the DOJ in the past (or who has worked for the the DOJ) understands that there are strong institutional norms that have taken scores of decades to develop- institutional integrity.

And, honestly, it is shocking to see how quickly they have been demolished. Courts react slowly, but they are catching up. But yes- it is heartbreaking to realize that not only can you not trust the representations made by a DOJ attorney- it is, in fact, likely that they might simply be lying to the court.

The sheer number of cases in just a few months show that this isn't just the case of a few bad apples, but complete institutional rot. And in a matter of months. I have to admit- the utter destruction of the DOJ this quickly? I didn't think it could happen.

I was wrong.

[ReaderY]

What’s happening now is even worse. The administration’s lawyers are now claiming that the President has the unfettered right to fabricate bogus ‘cause’ and that it doesn’t matter if he lies through his teeth about what the supposed cause is, because his decisions are unreviewable.

Frankly, if I were Ms. Cook’s lawyers, I would subpoena that government database as well as the bank personnel who supplied information for it and see if there is evidence that its records were tampered with. I wouldn’t put it past them.

Her lawyers are handling this in a milqetoast way, as if this were some sort of ordinary genteel intergovernmental dispute. We are not dealing with any such thing.

We are dealing with mafiosi, people who are openly arguing to the courts that their boss is not in any way a constitutional president but is instead a kind of mafia godfather who is entitled to trump up charges because he’s the boss. Frankly, I doubt people willing to do that would hesitate to fabricate evidence if the boss asks them to.

[Keldonric]

I’m not a lawyer and not immediately familiar with the mechanics, but could the publication of the mortgage documents raise any Privacy Act implications? If those records were aggregated in a federal system and linked to an individual, would that count as protected information? I was wondering this in light of Mr. Pulte’s post of the DOJ referral with the attachments.

[Kazinski]

No, because the records are public records.

They are filed with the county clerk.

[ReaderY]

It’s pretty easy when everyone who says no gets fired and replaced by people whose only loyalty is to the boss. I’m not sure the transformation has gone slower than Germany’s own attempt to drain the swamp. Even those efforts were somewhat uneven. As late as 1934 a Nazi-appointed prosecutor still had the nerve to attempt to prosecute a group of storm troopers for killing a socialist.

https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=lmej

[ReaderY]

Here is the Administration’s filing. The first argument is “The President’s ‘for cause’ determination is not sinject to judicial second-guessing.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42372/gov.uscourts.cadc.42372.01208775259.0_1.pdf

[Life of Brian]

It is now clear that in its rush to find an excuse to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the Trump Administration fell totally on its face, finding entries made by her banks in a federal database and falsely representing them, without so much as even bothering to check, to be statements made by her to the banks.

I've been a bit focused on other things over the past few days, so would appreciate a source on this (particularly the "now clear" part). I see stuff floating around about the bank's initial quote for one of the loans, but at first read that appears to have been based on a different occupancy status than the ultimately granted loan. May have missed something.

Also, the criminal referral letter purports to quote specific language from two different mortgage agreements signed within a few days of each other, in which Cook agreed to occupy each property as her principal residence for at least a year. Did that language not end up actually being in the loan docs?

In any event, is the theory that the banks made whatever federal database entries you're alluding to inaccurately, based on information they just made up, rather than the actual terms of the loans?

[pdshaw]

I don't think you've missed anything. The loan estimate argument came out Friday. ReaderY is seeking sanctions in a non-existent proceeding.

There are the criminal referrals which are presumably still under investigation.

There is a removal letter that complains of potentially criminal conduct, or at least gross negligence. I don't think any of the facts in the letter have been shown to be inaccurate, even if there is additional mitigating evidence.

There is Cook's lawsuit which studiously avoids making any evidentiary issues, but I would characterize as the claims in the removal letter are insufficient as a matter of law, either because they do not constitute "cause," or for want of a pre-removal hearing.

[ReaderY]

Because the administration never bothered to check any of her actual representations to the banks before rushing to fire her. It only checked THE GOVERNMENT’S ALLEGED RECORDS of THE BANKS’ representations to THE GOVERNMENT. Her representations to the banks were never checked.

The evidence makes clear she made no misrepresentations to the banks. Trump’s claims she did were complete bullshit. The government lawyers here filed papers with the courts that lacked any basis in fact.

[Life of Brian]

The evidence makes clear she made no misrepresentations to the banks.

Reiterating my more extensive post above: 1) what evidence are you referring to, 2) what alleged records of the banks' representations to the government, and 3) how does any of that contradict the evidence already on the table that the nearly simultaneous filing of two different loan agreements, both agreeing to occupy the subject property as a principal residence for the following year, by definition could not both have been truthful?

[windycityattorney]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/13/fed-governor-lisa-cook-home

"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”.

The document appears to help Cook’s case, said two real-estate experts who aren’t involved in representing her. That’s because it indicates that during the loan-application process, she told the lender she intended to use the property as a vacation home."

"In another point that could help Cook’s case, she never requested a tax exemption for the Georgia home as a primary residence."

[Life of Brian]

Thanks -- that was what I already saw and alluded to in my longer post. That didn't seem to fit the bill since ReaderY was using far more definite language than "appears to help" and "could help."

And without more, let's just say I wouldn't want to have to be in the position of arguing that an earlier loan estimate for a vacation home--just reflecting the information I had provided for the quote--somehow constitutes a written agreement by the bank to waive a material term in the ultimate loan agreement for a primary residence.

[Kazinski]

You should know none of that helps, a contract contains the terms of the agreement, unless other other document is referenced, and it is not.

What her claim is basically is "they knew I had my fingers crossed when I signed it."

Especially a contract that is designed to be securitized and sold to third party investors.

[windycityattorney]

If she told the lender it was a vacation condo/home and never applied for the tax exemption where the condo is located as if it were a primary residence; where is the fraud? What benefit does she receive?

Or conversely, to get the benefit wouldn't she also need to apply for a homestead exemption on the 2nd property??

When i got my mortgage I answered the lender's questions and provided the documentation requested of me. So long as I was truthful, what they do with that information is on them. If they make shit up to their underwriters to assure my loan approval, then they lied. Not me. I didn't commit any fraud or have any intent to defraud.

[Kazinski]

The benefit she received is a lower loan rate, typically the rate is .5% lower for primary residence.

The loan amount was 540,000, so lying about her primary residence saved her tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan. Her loan was 3.25% if she had to pay 3.75% her principle and interest would have gone to 2500.82 from 2,350.11.

That is $54,000 over the life of the loan.

And you don't seem to get it, she lied, she signed the contract that said it would be her principle residence. The credit union later sold the loan to an unsuspecting 3rd party investor, and it was federally guaranteed.

[Randal]

Even if it matters, your evidence is poor for this claim:

she lied, she signed the contract that said it would be her princip[al] residence

I mean she definitely did the latter part, but it could have been an oversight. She obviously told the lender that it was for a vacation home, so it's weird to claim that she lied about it. It just didn't make it into the contract correctly -- or perhaps the lender thought that the loan application counted as an "in writing" waiver. Either way, not fraud.

[Kazinski]

So going with gross incompetence then?

But I will give you credit not going with ReaderY's easily refuteable claim that they were just falsely represented database entries and weren't using the original signed documents that clearly establish the allegations.

The 'she had no idea what she was signing' defense really doesn't fly either, page 42 of the PDF is the notarized "closing attorneys affidavit" saying he went over all the terms and conditions of the security deed with the borrower.

[Life of Brian]

She obviously told the lender that it was for a vacation home, so it's weird to claim that she lied about it. It just didn't make it into the contract correctly

I can't find a copy of the actual estimate. Do you know of one? Without that, and without knowledge of the interest rate of the final loan, there's no way to tell whether the sequence of events might have been more like your "obviously" scenario or whether it might have been more like "oh, shit, I'm not paying THAT -- hey guys -- just remembered I'm gonna move in to this house as my primary residence after all, yep yep."

[Kazinski]

I can't find a copy of the estimate either.

Which is kind of a tell, the Reuters story said they reviewed it but provided no details, other than the the estimate said it was for a vacation home.

And it doesn't even say whether it was a preliminary estimate which isn't binding on either party, or a "Good Faith Estimate" which is binding and must be issued within 3 days of the formal submission of the application, and a credit report has been run.

[Randal]

You haven't really addressed Ridgeway's point, which is that the occupancy requirement is a covenant in the contract, not a representation. It says, if you fail to occupy the property the lender can move to default. It's not fraud to make a late payment either. The borrower is agreeing that if they fail to do those things it can lead to default, not that if they fail to do those things they're guilty of criminal fraud.

If she was leading the lender to believe she was occupying the property when she actually wasn't, that might be fraud, but there's no evidence of that. The opposite, in fact.

[Kazinski]

It is fraud if you never intended to comply with the covenant.

This is not the first time occupancy fraud has been charged, prosecuted, and convicted.

"Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that the number of mortgage fraud offenders sentenced annually has seen a significant decline, from 837 in Fiscal Year 2016 to only 58 in FY 2021. More recently, fewer than 40 people were sentenced for mortgage fraud in 2024."

If Obama's DOJ got 837 convictions less than a decade ago, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

[Randal]

I didn't say occupancy fraud was impossible, in fact I provided a mechanism: falsely representing occupancy status to the lender.

This clause in the contract doesn't even purport to represent a status. All the information we have indicates that she represented her status correctly to the lender.

'Member when you lot were all like, why do you care how Trump values his properties if the banks don't even care? What ever happened to that?

it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Wait a sec, are you really claiming not to see what's going on here? Trump and the DoJ don't give two shits about this alleged "mortgage fraud." They're just trying to harass and push out a fed governor. That's what makes it partisan, strange boy.

It would be corrupt even if this were a case of actual fraud of the sort that typically gets prosecuted. The fact that the allegations are totally fabricated only makes the corruption more glaring.

[Life of Brian]

'Member when you lot were all like, why do you care how Trump values his properties if the banks don't even care? What ever happened to that?

As we've discussed ad infinitum, valuation of a property is a subjective measure that everyone involved in a transaction understands to be a subjective measure and can and do take steps to protect themselves accordingly.

Whether a mortgaged property will be occupied by the owner, a renter, or nobody is quite objective, and is something the lender can't independently evaluate for themselves ex ante. That's why they make the applicant attest to it up front in the application, and sign an occupancy affidavit at closing. Neither of those documents end up in the public record, but anyone who has actually gone through a mortgage application and closing knows they exist (as well as the copious descriptions of and warnings about consequences of mortgage fraud, including under federal criminal law, copiously sprinkled through the closing papers in bold type immediately above the signature lines).

Search for "occupancy fraud" in your engine of choice for confirmation/more details. The typical sticky wicket is showing the deceptive state of mind of the applicant at the time of signing and that circumstances didn't just change afterward, but circumstantial evidence is a thing and here she appears to have burned a lot of plausible deniability out cards by making the same occupancy representation to two different banks about two different houses in two different states, roughly two weeks apart.

[Randal]

The point, dear Brian, is that the bank could have put her into default if it felt it had been defrauded. It hasn't. If the bank knew she wasn't living there, which it seems like they did, then there's no fraud.

Let's see these affidavits. There must be copies somewhere or else what's the point? The contract itself is not a representation so it's hard to see how it alone could constitute fraud, and the only other thing we have is paperwork from the bank indicating she told them it was a vacation home.

Imagine this was you. You tell the bank you need a loan for a vacation home and they give you an estimate. Then at contract signing there's paragraph 6, but they explain that it's a standard contract and that the exception to that paragraph is satisfied by the loan estimate. That all tracks. Then suddenly this retarded mob gets it in their head that you committed mortgage fraud. Well, you deserve it I guess.

[Life of Brian]

Meh -- you're just ignoring that this is a well-recognized form of fraud in the industry and the well-established safeguards in place that are likely falsely signed in the mortgage file. To distract from that, you're doubling down on some sort of weird first principles argument which itself relies on uncritically swallowing the media's favorable description of a document they won't actually show us, and without having the rest of the transaction context isn't necessarily helpful even if it says what they say it does.

Yes, let's get all the documents on the table. If she keeps fighting this, I'd imagine they'd have to come out. But I doubt it. You may have noticed that rather than submitting the estimate itself in the D.C. Circuit briefing, they leaked it to the press and then innocently cited to it in their brief. That doesn't bode well at all for that document actually doing anything remotely positive for her hiney -- of no surprise to anyone but the wishcasters. If there was anything at all exonerating in the mortgage packet, the informal up-front estimate sure wouldn't be it.

[Randal]

I'm ignoring the hypothetical affidavits? I mean, that's not even true. I agreed they would make a case for fraud if they exist. But you're gonna need them or something like them to get there. What we have so far doesn't cut it.

[Life of Brian]

In the stuff you just can't make up department, a thread that started with me gently questioning the basis for "it’s clear the claimed misconduct is totally bogus," lawyers should be disbarred for years, &c., has ended with the notion that somehow I have a burden to conclusively confirm that this apparently damning fact pattern actually is so.

I'm sure the folks with subpoena power will handle that just fine, if she's enough of a knucklehead to keep spending hand over fist from whatever La Resistance funding source she's hooked up to trying to stave off her inevitable stage-left exit.

[Randal]

somehow I have a burden to conclusively confirm that this apparently damning fact pattern actually is so.

Are you one of the government's lawyers? They certainly have the burden. So far they're just kicking up dust.

It's a problem if kicking up dust really is all they've got.

[bernard11]

Did she get the two mortgages from the same institution?

Did the first one show up on her credit report when she applied for the second?

Did she have to list it on her application?

This is nonsense.

[Kazinski]

Technically she would have to disclose the first Michigan mortgage on her application as a liability, but it would probably not show up on her credit report yet. It wouldn't have closed until she was fairly far into the application process for the Georgia Condo, which was almost 3x the price.

So we don't know if she disclosed it.

[Life of Brian]

Did she get the two mortgages from the same institution?

No. The recorded mortgage documents are both attached here.

Did the first one show up on her credit report when she applied for the second?

Are you suggesting occupancy status would show up on a credit report? I don't think that's the case, but if you know of something to the contrary please pass it on. And in any event, even if it did show up it wouldn't matter for the same reason as my below answer about the application.

Did she have to list it on her application?

Well, let's just say that if she had to and if she had listed it in a way favorable to her current situation, that sure would have been the document to leak rather than some ambiguous, context-free estimate, right?

And if she listed the MI house as "primary residence" and was getting a loan for the GA house also as "primary residence," that in and of itself couldn't be a flag to the bank since that's the exact situation of anyone who owns a house and is relocating. They'd have no reason to know she had just refi'd the MI house two weeks earlier and told that lender that house would continue to be her principal residence.

This is nonsense.

I agree. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Kazinski]

None of that matters.

The loan contract itself has the occupancy clause, none of the documents you are claiming exist are referenced in the loan documents, and Cook agreed to "all terms and conditions and covenants contained in THIS security agreement"

I can't believe you got yourself all wound up about this over a fantasy.

Do yourself a favor, download the PDF of the true copies of the actual loan documents I link to below, and read the two contracts, gaze upon Lisa Cooks signature, and weep.

The only thing these new documents do is make Lisa Cooks intent to defraud more manifest.

[Poxigah146]

This woman is a crook. Why are you defending her? Because she looks like Obama's hypothetical sister?

[ReaderY]

Ah, we have another “Comrade Napoleon is always right” advocate here. If Comrade Napoleon says she’s a crook, so of course she’s a crook. Who are mere judges to question the Feuhrer’s word?

How’s life in the Nazi Party going for you?

[ReaderY]

You know, either the bot budget was really lowballed here, or some “AI” bot contractor is making out with a killing. Did somebody pay your programmers for artificial intelligence instead of the artificial stupidity that got delivered here? Not that I can complain too much when fraudsters get a bit of their own medicine.

[Frank Drackman]

Godwin arrived early today

[ReaderY]

If I were Ms. Cook’s lawyers, I would be doing a full court press to check for tampering with and falsifying government records. The government’s rush to fire Ms. Cook without any investigation is by itself strong evidence that they knew not only that their evidence was bogus, but that any investigation would uncover misconduct on their part.

I would ask for funds to subpoena the bank records submitted to the government database, the testimony of relevant bank and government employees, the government database itself, and the services of a forensic technical team to pour over and analyze the database and back-ups to check for record alterations.

If tampering was found, any government attorney involved in this case should get very strong sanctions, like being barred from practice before the federal courts for years if not for life. When lawyers sign their names to claims based on zero or bogus evidence, as they repeatedly have, at some point nobody should be allowed to claim they are naive and gullible enough to believe that the word of this government is any more credible than ChatGTP.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Would the facts support obstruction of justice?

[Kazinski]

No they didn't "finding entries made by her banks in a federal database and falsely representing them, without so much as even bothering to check".

You should fact check yourself before making up stuff.

The August 15 Pulte referral letter has copies of the two notarized loan documents, signed by Lisa Cook.

https://www.creditslips.org/files/putle-criminal-referral-letter-1.pdf

Please see paragraph 6 of the two documents, "Occupancy. Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrowers principle residence within 60 days....."

You should be embarrassed, none of what you said is true, and its easy to check.

[Ridgeway]

Kaz -- you left out the second half of the sentence, where it says "unless otherwise agreed by Lender in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."

More importantly, this is the actual mortgage agreement, not an application, and Section 6 is a covenant, not a representation. If she fails to abide by the covenant, that is not fraud. Rather it would be a default and if not cured, could give rise the acceleration of the debt and foreclosure. No different from failure to make payments when due, or to maintain agreed levels of insurance.

And as has been mentioned above, it looks like the lender did agree in writing that this was to be a vacation house, so there is not even a blown covenant.

[Kazinski]

That is only if circumstances change, she is attesting at the time of the contract she intended to occupy the property. New job, illness, got fired, etc, could be grounds for the lender to waive the occupancy clause, where is the written waiver, executed after the mortgage document?

The "new documents" she is claiming were preliminary loan estimates when she was pricing the loan, all they do is make it clear she knew she was getting a better rate by lying on the actual loan transaction.

[Kazinski]

The dates on the documents make that clear, the loan estimate as a vacation home was May 28, 2021.

The loan was closed on July 2, 2021.

From CNN:

"A loan estimate for an Atlanta home purchased by Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor accused of mortgage fraud by the Trump administration, shows that Cook had declared the property as a “vacation home,” according to a document reviewed by Reuters.

The document, dated May 28, 2021, was issued to Cook by her credit union in the weeks before she completed the purchase and shows that she had told the lender that the Atlanta property wouldn’t be her primary residence."

So there is no way an informal loan estimate more than a month previous, which was not referenced in the loan agreement could absolve her from complying with her agreeing in the contract she "shall" make the Atlanta condo her primary residence.

[Randal]

Why not? The contract explicitly states "unless otherwise specified in writing." The loan estimate is in writing.

Also what ridgeway said about this being a covenant, not a representation.

Also I don't know what you think makes an informal loan estimate different than a formal one. Seems like you're just being dumb.

[Kazinski]

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about, a formal good faith estimate is binding on the lender and has to be generrated and mailed to the borrower within 3 days after the application is taken by the loan officer.
The lender can only change the terms if some material fact is different, like the pay stubs don't add up, the appraisal doesn't come in high enough.

Not only that the content in the good faith estimate federally regulated and can't throw in crap to modify the terms not a loan that hasn't been completed yet.

All the terms of the loan have to be in the contract or explicitly referenced in it.

An informal estimate doesn't require a credit check, or even the property to be identified, and can merely be spitballing, as long as the quoted rate is available for a similar property and credit score.

And surely you realize that the agreement in writing is only intended to modify the contract when there is unforseen circumstances AFTER the contract is executed. An vacation home loan agreement won't have the occupancy clause, because the borrower wouldn't sign something they "shall" do something they have no intention of doing.

What makes me think they are different is I am a federally licensed Mortgage Loan Originator, and you have to take remedial courses every year and pass a new test, and all the material on occupancy fraud and good faith estimates gets a lot of attention.

Here are the CFPB regulations and the required format for a Good faith Estimate:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1024/c/

[Randal]

Oh I see. This is a case of a myopic expert not seeing the big picture because they understand the minutae all to well and can't see past it.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, it’s Kaz. He did the same thing with the GOP Biden fishing expeditions, and the Minnesota shooter being a leftist.

Well beyond when there was any argument. Well behind good taste. Well behind shame, he kept plugging on all of them.

He gets this partisan mania and posts and posts.

[Randal]

In that case it's even more embarrassing that he has some actual knowledge in this domain and still gives in to partisanship over reason.

[Bwaaah]

Randal and Sarc chewing on Kaz's remark. It's like taking a thought and cutting it in half, and then in half again, pointing to an asymptote that approaches nothing.

[Kazinski]

The big picture is that a good faith estimate for a vacation home couldn't be used for a loan for a primary residence, it would have to be superseded by a new a good faith estimate for the primary home.

And it could never be used as a written modification of a loan that hasn't been closed yet.

And any mortgage loan professional that attempted to give an off the books written waiver for terms of a loan that hasn't even been written yet would lose their license.

Not to mention no one is even claiming the May estimate for the July mortgage is such a written waiver, that's just Randal spitballing.

But lets all bookmark this conversation, because it will be eventually resolved.

[Randal]

None of which amounts to fraud on her part. That's the piece of the big picture you keep avoiding.

[Kazinski]

Signing a contract misrepresenting a material fact is fraud.

[Randal]

I looked at the contract. It wasn't a representation, so it can't be a misrepresentation.

[Kazinski]

Purely and simply she misrepresented her intention to make the condo her primary abode.

Fraud.

Nobody is disputing that constitutes fraud.

Lowell is trying to characterize it as an unintentional error, but that won't fly either because the closing attorney says he covered all of obligations and made sure she understood them at the closing in a notarized affidavit.

[Randal]

If she signed an affidavit that represented occupancy then yeah, that would be a thing. Where is it?

[John F. Carr]

The Lisa Cook argument shows us why the constitution prefers a hearing before removing somebody for cause. Her opponents point to accusations of misconduct which her supporters offer a defense to. Due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard. She is supposed to be told what the problem is (notice) and be allowed to tell her side of the story (opportunity to be heard).

[Martinned]

Imagine if she could actually sue people for libelling her!

(Well, she can sue of course. But she can't win.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yet under the Jan 6th protocol, she deserves to be denied bail and held without charges in a prison controlled by the Aryan Brotherhood. Fair is fair.

[Glaucomatose]

Under the Jan 6th protocol, she deserves to receive a trial in front of a jury of her peers, and pardoned by the President if it's found that she was guilty of seditious conspiracy and tried to violently overthrow the government.

[Poxigah146]

The 1/6 defendants were not tried in front of a jury of their peers, unless you think white middle Americans are "peers" to juries that are half yuppie liberal whites working for the federal government and half ghetto black.

[Malika la Maize]

Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence so much?

[ReaderY]

Ahh. The noble pigs can’t be tried before a jury of mere common animals. You can’t trust commoners, they might reach the wrong result. All animals are equal, but some animals are definitely more equal than others.

Nice try, Nazi.

[pdshaw]

Sure, Congress has required hearings before removal for some offices. Within the context of the underlying separation of powers issues though it doesn't make any sense for courts to read into this statute a notice and an opportunity to be heard in order to defend legislative prerogatives to gives some offices greater independence.

[Glaucomatose]

If Congress requires that an office be subject to removal only for cause, but the courts decide that the President can declare 'cause' at will and have that declaration be unreviewable, then how is Congress's requirement being met?

[pdshaw]

I'm skeptical of the administration's position that "cause" is unreviewable. That would seem to eliminate a crucial discretion recognized in Collins v. Yellen (2021) that removal for "cause" is distinct from "at will." If they are functionally the same because cause is judicially unreviewable, then a "cause" requirement for removal couldn't have been significant enough to divest the President's authority to wield executive powers.

OTOH Cooks' complaint also ignores Collins v. Yellen which also found "cause" to give the President greater authority than in statutes limiting removal to "inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office." I think the SCOTUS will follow the distinction made in Collins, but none of the parties or the trial judge have offered an explanation of what lies between at-will (or unreviewable cause) and "INM."

[ReaderY]

It can be addressed by post-hoc proceedings. If the President makes completely bogus charges based on zero fact-finding in an attempt at a political takeover, there can be consequences for that. Courts have the inherent authority to ensure they are not defrauded.

[William of Brooklyn]

What part of the Constitution is that?? The issue here is the misconstrued need for removal to be based on "cause." The other misunderstanding is that there is a 5th Amendment issue here. She is not being deprived of her life or liberty, clearly. And it takes a real abuse to think of her Governorship as her "property."

After the reversal of Humphrey's Executor this year by SCOTUS, the *actual* Constitution will become more clear: ALL appointed Executive Branch members are dismissible by any president, with or without "cause."

[not guilty]

A person who is employed for a specific term, subject to removal only for cause, has a protectible property interest in receiving salary and benefits attendant to employment during that term.

[William of Brooklyn]

Unless, of course, the statutory provision that restricts her removal to only be "for cause,' is itself unconstitutional. Which is the case.

[ducksalad]

Right now the executive branch has a huge number of bodies called "commissions" or "boards". There are laws requiring them do this thing called "voting", and the laws often also give the members "terms".

Under unitary executive theory, in its maxed out form, what is the point of voting? As I understand your position, the members' job is to obey the president, and failure to vote as instructed is a firing offense. I can't see why any president would want to order a non-unanimous vote, so shouldn't all votes be unanimous, and therefore pointless?

If the prez really wanted to poll a range of opinions, he's got a phone and could just call anyone he wants. No need for Congress to create positions and do formal appointments with senate confirmation.

Likewise, what is the meaning of a "term" in absolute at-will employment? It's like a landlord saying your lease is one year and month-to-month at the same time.

[William of Brooklyn]

At last, you understand the Executive branch. Like all uniformed officers of the United States, cabinet appointees, etc., etc., if you are IN the Executive Branch, then ANY authority you have is derivative of, and therefore subject to, presidential authority. Members of the Cabinet exercise far more power than downstream agencies, but somehow we all accept that they serve at the president's pleasure. But not downstream appointees? Of course, to pick up on your Plural Executive Theory, all these powerful positions are politically answerable to no one. I thought we settled all this with the acquittal of Andrew Johnson, but I guess Wilson, and Wilson II (aka FDR) put us on this ridiculous bender, and it's taken until now to be solved.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not in the Constitution.

[ducksalad]

An alternate theory:

Let's agree for the sake of argument that their authority is derived solely from presidential authority. However, the president's own authority, except for a few things written out in the text like signing bills, issuing pardons, and receiving ambassadors, is derived from the power to carry out laws passed by Congress.

That list of enumerated executive powers does not explicitly include firing officers. We can Congress passed some laws granting him that authority, but they can withdraw that authority, or grant it some cases but not others, or subject it to conditions.

Alternatively, you can try to claim the firing power is inherent because it's "necessary" to effectively carry out the President's duties. But there is no necessary and proper clause in Article II. It's in Article I. One can argue that ultimately it's up to Congress to decide if and when firing is a necessary and proper thing, and even then, it's a "may" not a "shall". They can decline to authorize necessary and proper things.

[William of Brooklyn]

Well, that certainly is an "alternative theory," which, to quote Sarcastr0, is "not in the Constitution." What IS in the Constitution is that "the Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Not the legislative power, not the judicial power, and not "some" of the executive power, but most emphatically "the" executive power -- which makes no other appearance anywhere in the Constitution, and most certainly NOT in Article I.

[Sarcastr0]

You read an inky there into the text.

You also have the issue of the Constitution leaving it undefined what the executive power includes. We know it’s executing the laws…and to a great extent Congress can say how to execute them when it writes those laws.

Saying Congress cannot say how in the very particular way of when staff can be fired doesn’t appear in the Congressional text.

[Kazinski]

Article 1 says the legislative power resides in the Congress.

Article 2 says the Executive power resides in the President.

Article 3 says the Judicial power resides in the Supreme Court, and what ever inferior courts Congress creates.

What did they miss?

You'd think if they thought there was a bureaucratic power they'd have said something.

[Sarcastr0]

There’s a ton of scholarship in this.

You are reading the word only in there when it’s not.

[John F. Carr]

See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, a Supreme Court case which the judge in Cook's case cited with approval.

"In these cases we consider what pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause. [...] The need for some form of pretermination hearing, recognized in these cases, is evident from a balancing of the competing interests at stake."

[Kazinski]

The constitution requires due process for a conviction. But boards and commissions set up by congress do not implicate constitutional rights.

Congress provided:
"and thereafter each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President."

[Martinned]

The Constitution does require that the President see that the laws be faithfully executed, instead of ignoring whatever parts of statutes he finds inconvenient.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the case of Cook, what part has Trump ignored?

[Martinned]

Perhaps some of you find Tyler Cowen more persuasive than me:

One of the most dangerous collectivist arguments in the wake of Kirk’s murder is to blame the “trans community.” Some have reported that Robinson lived with a transgender romantic partner. Regardless of whether this proves to be true, there is no good evidence that trans individuals are especially likely to commit murder (try asking Grok). There is also no evidence that this particular trans individual contributed to the murder plot; rather, reports indicate the person in question is cooperating with the authorities.

If there is generalized evidence for anything, it is that trans individuals are likely to be the victims of violent attacks.

And yet, Elon Musk is approvingly reposting the following: “It’s time for a complete and total ban on cross-sex hormones. They cannot change your sex. They turn men with perverse fetishes into deranged bioweapons, and women trying to escape sexual trauma into androgynous osteoporotic goblins. These people need to spend a long time in an asylum—some of them, indefinitely.”

Constitutional rights, anyone? The right for peaceful individuals to avoid involuntary incarceration? How about basic toleration? Musk is an individualist in many other contexts, but it appears not this one. As a strategy matter, why go out of your way to make left-wing charges against the right seem plausible?

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/stop-blaming-them.html

[Malika la Maize]

“And yet, Elon Musk is approvingly reposting the following: “It’s time for a complete and total ban on cross-sex hormones. They cannot change your sex. They turn men with perverse fetishes into deranged bioweapons, and women trying to escape sexual trauma into androgynous osteoporotic goblins. These people need to spend a long time in an asylum—some of them, indefinitel”

Another example of a very weird man awfully upset at those “weirdo trannys.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Imagine thinking that cross dressers who chemically and surgically mutilate themselves aren't weirdos...

[Malika la Maize]

Imagine being a weird eccentric autistic ketamine user with over a dozen kids (with names like Xi) who dwells on that….

The “mutilation” thing is quite dumb. It’s like the unc who goes on about how the waiter with gauges, piercings, etc., has “mutilated” themselves. People have been altering their physical form for forever.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so earrings and castration are equivalent?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Imagine not understanding the difference between piercing your ears and cutting your dick off.

[Malika la Maize]

Look at this square, piercings=piercing your ears! Oh my sweet summer child!
Do you live in rural Idaho or your mom’s basement with strict parental controls on technology accessing the outside world?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, people have had pathologies as long as there have been people, which doesn't make them not pathologies.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, people have been pathologically prudish about what other consenting adults do with their bodies forever.

[William of Brooklyn]

I completely agree with your point with respect to consenting adults. But not children incapable of consent by definition.

[Martinned]

children incapable of consent by definition.

How do you figure?

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

[Mr. Bumble]

Based on a judicial decision from a UK court regarding birth control.
I'd suggest that is not how most people feel about the subject especially when it comes to mutilating a child's body.

[Sarcastr0]

If Brett doesn't have any gender issues, it must be pathological.

Brett remains the worst libertarian.

[shawn_dude]

Getting plastic sacks of saline shoved into your chest is "mutilation" if you're a trans woman and totally cool if a CIS woman. Even CIS men are getting chest implants these days. Any form of plastic surgery is no different. Even circumcision would qualify.

The deciding factor between "mutilation" and "beauty" seems to be based on how the results fit into gender stereotypes.

[Martinned]

Musk is traumatised because his daughter Vivian hates him. (I can't vouch for the others either, but I guess Musk can't blame their transness for that.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"try asking Grok"

I really wish people would stop citing LLM's.

[shawn_dude]

citing? no. But they're a fun toy. Grok == NazAI. It gives all sorts of crazy answers based on its source material. Probably would be identical if someone used Reason to teach an LLM how to think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Martinned , there probably are drivers who drive better drunk, and when trannies are only 0.6% of the population (Gallop) or 1% (UCLA-LAW gay center), they are committing a statistically disproportionate number of murders. Hence your argument goes into the toilet.

[Malika la Maize]

Men commit a disproportionately higher number of murders than trans persons, whiny incel.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It has long been established that the mentally ill have no Constitutional rights. See: McCabe v. Life-Line Ambulance Service, Inc., 77 F.3d 540 (1st Cir. 1995), McCabe v. City of Lynn, 875 F. Supp. 53 (D. Mass. 1995)

"This case involves Rose Zinger who survived the Holocaust only to die at the hands of the Lynn Police."

[bernard11]

It has long been established that the mentally ill have no Constitutional rights.

WTF???

[Brett Bellmore]

"that the sane are bound to respect", I think he meant.

Of course the mentally ill have constitutional rights.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You think that's what Dr. Ed 2 meant...

[Bunny495]

A little OT but has anyone checked out the cost of the drugs and medical procedures required for trans stuff; not to mention who is paying for it. Without subsidies you could probably count the number of transitions on your fingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Until 45/47 returned to Orifice, the Taxpayers were, at least for the "Transitions" performed at DOD medical facilities (Fort Bragg NC for one)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm not aware of any notable collectivist argument to "blame the “trans community.”" for Kirk's assassination. Possibly some scattered cranks, but no one of any note. All I've seen is pointing out his romantic relationship with a transgendered male as a possible indication of a motive for his crime.

[Malika la Maize]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/megyn-kelly-unveils-furious-new-mission-after-charlie-kirk-killing/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I see you continue to demonstrate your illiteracy, as well as your eagerness to swallow partisan propaganda whole...due at least in part to your apparent inability to read. There was not a single actual quote by Meghan "blaming the trans community" for Kirk's assassination. She spoke of people (including Kirk) being silenced in the name of trans ideology, likely based on the information about Kirk's (alleged) assassin's romantic relationship with a trans individual and that being at least one likely motivation for the killing. Note that does not indict this particular trans individual themselves. No doubt a distinction too subtle for you to grasp, but a very real one nonetheless. Also included were recent murders...including mass murders...directly committed by some trans individuals themselves. Again, this does not indict "the community" as a whole, just those who appear to have been driven by that aspect of their psychological makeup.

[Martinned]

Good news people! It looks like there are some vacancies about to open up in the Trump cabinet: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

[ThePublius]

Don't you have some boring documents to read? You've made 17 posts so far today, or 27% of the posts in this thread.

[Martinned]

Today I'm doing Stata analysis.

[Frank Drackman]

I do that all the time, usually while looking at porn.

[Kazinski]

The labor secretary may be problematic, but the other ones are probably just fine. Standard mortagage contracts only require you to keep maintain the property as your primary residence for one year after closing, and you have 60 days to do it. The fact that someone with multiple homes got loans on 2 or 3 as a primary residence, likely is perfectly legitimate, especially a politician that owns a home in their home state, and then buys a home in Washington where they live and work.

[Sarcastr0]

Listened to a podcast that interviewed Prof. Brian Keating about what he's learned from interviewing a bunch of Nobel prize winners. I think he's taken a bad lesson from his discussions, though an understandable one.

He says one thing that came out from his discussions was that the key is focus. Don' cast about for what field speaks to you. Instead pick one early, and then work at it until you have a depth of expertise that hardly anyone can emulate. That's where the discoveries are. And the younger you get there, the more likely you are to intuit something golden.

1. I'm sure a lot of the Laureates he's interviewed have a story like that. But that's sample bias - the ones that focused on something they weren't passionate about never made it to that status.

2. It also neglects the rise of crosscutting science in the past 30 or so years. Depth of expertise used to be the low-hanging fruit. But we've plucked a lot of that. There's still plenty around there, but the insights from mixing the perspectives of 2 fields has proven fertile ground recently.

3. Youth isn't required for scientific discovery. If you blindly look at when people make their seminal discovery, youth seems to check out. But I read a book whose name alas escapes me, which noted that you publish a lot of papers when you're young just naturally. And when you compensate for publication frequency, the age of discovery turns out to have no strong statistical push.

[ThePublius]

It also apparently neglects the political aspect of the prizes; e.g., Obama, who did nothing but was awarded one, on speculation, or perhaps adulation.

[Malika la Maize]

The Obama one was uncommonly silly.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but he grew into it. Oh, wait he didn't. Never mind.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, that's actually a reasonable honest statement.

[Malika la Maize]

Not a Reasonably honest
Statement( ?

[Sarcastr0]

Riva-like posting detected.

This is not about that kind of Nobel Prize winner, chief.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the "Chief"??
Just put a big "L" on your forehead

[Malika la Maize]

Francis like a big L, like he likes all capital letters!

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you know something about the OP that's not in evidence? Or are you just being your typical snarky self?

[Sarcastr0]

You can tell tell by the 2nd paragraph it's about scientific discovery...or did you get that far before you posted?

Black President broke a lot of people's brains.

[loki13]

Really? To point out the obvious-

1. Yes, the Nobel PEACE Prize, unlike the other ones, does have a political aspect to it. I wonder why? What could possibly make the Nobel PEACE Prize different than that Nobel Prizes in other areas- you know ... Physics? Chemistry? Medicine? Even Literature?

2. As I noted in another thread, the Nobel Peace Prize has had a number of uncommonly silly (or tragic) recipients. Generally, the best ones (in hindsight) are the ones given to organizations or to non-political figures who have done humanitarian work.

3. That said, the Obama one is definitely one of the silly ones. Which is why he didn't want it, and inquired about not accepting it (I went through this before). I recommend reading his acceptance speech. Anyway, it is a silly prize- it's almost like it would be really silly for someone to actively campaign for it, don't you think?

In fact, why would someone campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize? It's a silly award. Unless ... do you think someone might have had their ego bruised at some point, and every thing since then has been some way to compensate for that?

Naw. That level of immaturity, childishness, and spite would be crazy. No one would possibly be that narcissistic and self-centered to do that. I mean, if I had a fictional character do that, you wouldn't believe it, so it obviously isn't the case that it's actually happening.

[Ridgeway]

If you want infuriating, check out the Nobel prizes for literature.

[Don Nico]

Your number 3 does not seem to be correct for mathematics. I would say that your #3 statement does agree for physics and literature.

[Bunny495]

The Nobel Prize has always been mostly bullshit. Riddle me this Batman while deserved Einstein got his for the photoelectric effect but failed to get a few more for what most would consider more significant stuff.

[shawn_dude]

There are a number of reasons Einstein didn't get an award for all the years he was nominated. The Nobel committee prioritized experimental validation of theories which things like relativity did not have at that time. Einstein was very theoretical, generally. His work on the photoelectric effect was more grounded in understood science and was validated. WWI and his German citizenship and employment might explain some of the rest.

[Bunny495]

All of which sounds like bullshit to me. No question the 1919 solar eclipse was the first brick in building support for relativity.

[shawn_dude]

That Nobel dude gets to set his own rules for his prize. People seem to make a big deal out of the hard science prizes. It can do wonders for someone's career prospects in academia. The nominees and winners are non-trivial researchers in their fields. Maybe they should drop the peace prize given it's shaky political nature and just stick to the stuff that has obvious value.

[not guilty]

To reiterate a point I made in yesterday's open thread, Charlie Kirk's execrable comments about the Second Amendment deserves further discussion. Mr. Kirk glibly claimed: "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." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

If and to the extent that Mr. Kirk was referring to protecting the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms does not achieve that. (Except perhaps the right to worship firearms.)

Shooting an assailant or intruder does not protect the shooter's free expression rights. It does not protect the shooter against unreasonable searches or seizures by the government. It does not protect the shooter against government deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It does not protect the shooter's right to a fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury. And so forth.

[Malika la Maize]

Even if you subscribe to the collective view of the 2nd I don’t think it’s disputable that the Framers hoped state militias would be a bulwark against a potentially tyrannical federal government.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, another reasonable comment, are you the Bizarro Queenie??

[Malika la Maize]

same Old(
francis

[LexAquilia]

His handlers have sensed the massive Overton Window shift and the clear movement in our cultural Zeitgeist and they are repositioning themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about their right to life or property?

[Michael P]

He doesn't believe in those, natch.

[not guilty]

Brett, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to life or property. It protects against governmental deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of law and against takings for public use without just compensation.

[damikesc]

And as the UK is showing, without the arms, the government will have few qualms silencing you. No rights exist without the 2nd.

[Michael P]

The Bill of Rights does not attempt to enumerate "our other God-given rights". Stop arguing against straw men.

[Michael P]

It would be nice if you had even a passing acquaintance with history in connection with the Second Amendment. The Founders knew well how governments with standing armies behave.

[Sarcastr0]

?
The US has had a standing army since basically the Founding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_Army_(United_States)

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously US history was another of the many subjects you failed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he's not wrong that the US rapidly decided to have at least a small standing army, mainly as a consequence of the militias failing to be useful in wars of aggression against the Indians, and later the British in the war of 1812.

Properly so, part of the POINT of a militia system is that it's not useful for wars of aggression!

But that doesn't change the reason that the 2nd amendment was adopted, and appropriations for the army were limited to 2 years at a time. You don't adopt constitutional protections against evils you don't think governments would be tempted to in the first place...

[Mr. Bumble]

Personnel strength

1775–1783: 17,000 (Continental Army without militias)
1784: 700 (First American Regiment)
1793: 5,100 (Legion of the United States)
1812: 7,000
1815: 35,800
1846: 8,600
1848: 32,000
1861: 16,400 (Regular Army, before the American Civil War)
1865: 1,000,500 (Union Army including volunteer units)
1869: 39,000
1870: 30,000
1874: 25,000
1898: 25,000
1917: 286,000
1939: 189,800
1945: 8,268,000
2017: 460,000
2020: 480,900
2023: 453,551

Numbers rounded up or down to full thousands or to full hundreds, if more precisely known.

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, it would be nice. As you probably know Michael P, and as Sarcastr0 should know, the 2nd amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights Act of 1689, in direct response to this:

King James II attempted to disarm his Protestant subjects while simultaneously consolidating power by expanding his standing army with Catholic officers, a move that contributed significantly to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This policy was not an isolated event but part of a broader strategy to promote Catholicism and strengthen royal authority.

And so, the English Bill of Rights reads: the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.

[jb]

Even as someone generally in favor of gun control, I find the left's obsession with this quote fairly lame.

Imagine instead of guns we were talking about cars and someone said "I think it's worth it to have a few (tens of thousands) car deaths a year so that we can get around and have a modern society". That's doesn't seem like an outrageous statement, and it's absolutely the overall deal that we've made as a society. Same goes for electricity or swimming pools. We tolerate some number of deaths because the thing killing people brings value to society.

The reason I favor gun control is with most of these things we try to minimize the number of deaths. We don't let you drive a car without a license, and we make manufacturers install airbags. With guns for some reason a bunch of people think that because the founders wanted some well regulated militias, we're not allowed to have any regulations on guns and it makes the whole discussion pretty dumb.

[ThePublius]

"...shall not be infringed."

[jb]

Oh, okay. Debate over then. We'll just ignore the rest of the words. And the fact that there's limits on all the other amendments. And history, too.

Like I said, the discussion gets pretty dumb.

[JohnSmith97]

It gets dumb because the "eliminate the 2nd amendment" crowd is unwilling to state what other parts of the US Constitution they would remove to allow their "gun-free" (not really, the gov't would still have them) utopia to be realized.

Because you will need to go house to house to get them "all".

[not guilty]

"It gets dumb because the 'eliminate the 2nd amendment' crowd is unwilling to state what other parts of the US Constitution they would remove to allow their 'gun-free' (not really, the gov't would still have them) utopia to be realized."

The Second Amendment is not going to be eliminated. Guns prohibited or regulated consistent with that amendment are to be treated like other forms of contraband, without removing other provisions of the Constitution.

I am fine and good with the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), including the recognition that:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Id., at 626. The Heller Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess guns. But the Court emphasized that the Second Amendment does not protect “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid.

"Because you will need to go house to house to get them 'all'."

If some firearms are declared to be contraband, as with other prohibited items, no government is going to relieve the populace wholesale of such contraband. Any entry into a particular house to disarm an individual, it would in all likelihood do so by means of overwhelming force.

For example, think about when local police execute a search warrant which authorizes the seizure of firearms, among other items. If an occupant of the premises is foolish enough to draw down on the cops -- he is more likely to evacuate his bowels into his pants -- he can commit suicide by cop only once. And contrary to Charlton Heston's bloviation, police won't wait for his hands to turn cold before relieving him of his popgun.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Publius — Gun nuts love that part, but reject all discussions about what is the extent of the right which shall not be infringed. When it comes to that, it's supposed to be all maximalist gun-nut ipse dixit.

Try to do better yourself. For context, try to imagine an end to giddy high-riding for the gun lobby, and a political administration in the hands of gun opponents. Will it be better then if you had been working on reasonable compromises, or if you had been teaching maximalist demands as the only legitimate way to go?

[ThePublius]

Historically, compromises have always led to reduced firearms rights. To the anti-gun crowd, compromise means just that.

[Sarcastr0]

If you refuse compromise, then it's a hard case to also complain about the status quo.

[Poxigah146]

Yes, we've seen what your side means. "Bear arms" means carrying on the street only, and not within 500 feet of a whole host of places.

[Malika la Maize]

You can’t even get your straw man right, the left tends to argue carry only applies to the home (if individual).

[Brett Bellmore]

"The reason I favor gun control is with most of these things we try to minimize the number of deaths."

I think the problem here in treating auto accidents as meaningfully analogous to murders is pretty obvious.

Almost nobody WANTS to be in an auto accident. Almost.

So, you can dramatically reduce the rate of auto accidents by requiring training in how to use cars. Safety features like seat belts and air bags meet with no resistance to speak of, because they ARE safety features, they're preventing what people don't want.

To the extent that automotive injuries are deliberate, though, nobody really thinks licensing and driver ed does anything to solve the problem, because they focus on being able to do with the car what you're trying to do. If you're trying to run somebody over, being competent at driving doesn't get in your way.

By contrast, the fraction of firearms injuries that are actual accidents is quite low, and while training would help lower that still more, just try getting gun safety classes like the one I took in HS back in the 70's past modern gun controllers. They view training as more of an obstacle to throw up in the way of potential owners.

No, most firearms injuries are either suicide or crime.

Now, studies have demonstrated that firearms ownership does NOT, as alleged, cause suicide deaths: The only correlation there is a very brief spike in suicide rates after buying your first gun, which is clearly a result of people deciding to commit suicide and going out to buy a gun.

But the correlation is not very high, because almost everybody who buys their first gun does not go on to commit suicide. Frankly, there are much more obvious ways to address suicide if you really want to save lives, than leaving people suicidal but trying to deprive them of one, and only one, way of getting the job done.

So, that leaves crime. Which is, trivially, committed by "criminals".

I don't mean that as a joke, almost all gun crimes are committed by career criminals, and largely against other criminals, too! (Most murder victims have criminal records...) The idea that ordinary people suddenly "snap" and shoot people is largely a myth, it happens at a very small rate.

So, if you really want to reduce gun use in crimes, you need to reduce guns owned by criminals, not ordinary people, and criminals are the hardest people to disarm. They have little impulse to obey laws to begin with, and easy access to black markets.

And there we have the basic problem with gun control laws: The first people disarmed are the people who weren't going to do anything wrong with a gun, and the last people disarmed, if at all, are the people who WILL do something wrong with one.

And if gun ownership were a meaningless hobby with no constitutional implications, like stamp collecting, maybe you'd ban them anyway, because who the hell cares if you have to abolish a hobby to marginally reduce a serious crime. (The hobbyists do, obviously...)

But it's actually a constitutional right, and you're going to infringe it for literally hundreds of innocent people for every guilty person you merely inconvenience.

So, sincerely? Screw that.

[jb]

We do lots of things to make it less likely cars will be used in crimes that don't involve banning them. We put license plates and VINs on them so it's easier for cops to track them down. For people that have been convinced of drunk driving, sometimes we put breathalyzers on them before they will start. We put up barriers to prevent them from going in places where they would be unsafe. Similarly, there's lots of things you could do to reduce gun crime without banning guns, but it's impossible to have the conversation because we end up at "Screw that." without any real consideration of options.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides. Even you point out there's some correlation between gun ownership and suicide, even if you try to downplay it. Why shouldn't we try to reduce the number of suicides?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm fine with reducing the number of suicides. I just don't think gun control is, realistically, a way of doing that, and even if it had some minor effect on suicide rates, the cost to civil liberties is excessive.

You do understand that the causation here is that a person decides to commit suicide, and buys a gun to do it with, NOT person buys a gun, and then decides to commit suicide because they've got it handy, right?

[jb]

If your theory of causation is correct, if we licensed guns like we do cars (i.e., you need to go through some training before you can buy one) it seems like a lot of people would be deterred.

And guns are much more effective than other means of suicide, even if those people would try some other way if they didn't have a gun, you'd still end up with many fewer suicide deaths.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In point of fact, with respect to cars you do not need a license to "buy one" in any US state I am familiar with.

Registration is only necessary to use one on the public roads.

And of course, no license at all is required to simply buy one.

(I suspect you will not be repeating the "if we licensed guns like we do cars" argument again soon...)

[Randal]

How do you plan to get your unlicensed car home?

[Bwaaah]

Impossible!!!

[Randal]

Ok, and by the same token, I'm sure we could come up with a regime allowing for the mere ownership of guns while preventing their use without a license.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Car delivery is a thing you may have heard of? Flatbed trucks, etc.

And no, despite your valiant attempt to rescue jb's poor analogy, no gun control advocate past, present or future would accept "gun control" which allowed anyone to own any gun so long as it was always kept in the home, or not used without a license.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We do lots of things to make it less likely cars will be used in crimes that don't involve banning them. We put license plates and VINs on them so it's easier for cops to track them down.

Making it easier to locate an object used in a crime after the fact does not necessarily make it significantly less likely that such objects will be used in crimes. The sheer number of criminal offenses people do in fact commit using motor vehicles (common terms like "drive-by shooting" exist for a reason) certainly casts some doubt on the effectiveness of such laws as preventive measures. I would suspect (though that's really all it is, as I don't have any empirical data to support it) that those who usually intentionally commit such crimes are not the thoughtful sorts for whom "What if they're able to trace me to this act via my car's VIN?" is ever a part of the their go/no-go calculus when contemplating their actions.

[not guilty]

Guns don't kill people.

Gunshot wounds (often) kill people.

[damikesc]

You'd think gun stores would have tons and tons of deaths, since people do not seem to be needed for a gun to fire.

[shawn_dude]

"So, if you really want to reduce gun use in crimes, you need to reduce guns owned by criminals, not ordinary people, and criminals are the hardest people to disarm. They have little impulse to obey laws to begin with, and easy access to black markets."

This whole "criminals will break the law anyway so let's give guns to law abiding people too" argument is hollow. We make whole classes of "arms" illegal and don't allow the average citizen access to them yet you don't see criminals getting them that often either. When was the last time a criminal used a stinger missile to take down a police helicopter? Or cleared a bank with nerve gas?

[not guilty]

When outlaws are outlawed, only outlaws will be outlaws.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No one is "giving guns to law abiding people too".

A Constitution-abiding government simply cannot prevent such people from owning one if they choose to do so.

[bernard11]

if you really want to reduce gun use in crimes, you need to reduce guns owned by criminals, not ordinary people, and criminals are the hardest people to disarm.

I'm not so sure of this. States' violent crime rates, and gun deaths, are heavily correlated with gun ownership percentages. And why is this surprising? A criminal is a law-abiding citizen and "responsible gun owner" until he decides not to be. Guns get stolen, maybe 200,000 times a year.

So even a gun owned by an upstanding citizen may end up used in a crime.

[Absaroka]

"States' violent crime rates, and gun deaths, are heavily correlated with gun ownership percentages."

See the first chart (and heck, all of 'em!) :-).

Note that that chart is homicides, not homicides+suicides. IMHO, those are pretty orthogonal questions, with pretty different solutions.

I also think that they present rather different moral questions: I'm pretty willing to impose my will on someone to keep them from committing murder, but a lot less willing to impose my will on someone to stop them from killing themself. I'm willing to let people risk their lives by doing risky things - Himalayan climbing, smoking, skydiving, or owning guns or motorcycles or ladders. IMHO their personal risk calculus is their business, not mine. As with any moral question, opinions will vary on that.

[not guilty]

Every person who purchases a firearm does so because he wants to have a deadly weapon at his disposal. (Even if he intends to use it only against bad guys.)

I don't think that can be said of motor vehicle buyers. An automobile or truck, as used, can become a deadly weapon. A firearm is a deadly weapon per se.

[ducksalad]

"Even if he intends to use it only against bad guys deer."

[Life of Brian]

Imagine instead of guns we were talking about cars and someone said "I think it's worth it to have a few (tens of thousands) car deaths a year so that we can get around and have a modern society".

You don't even have to imagine: that's the exact analogy Charlie drew at the time:

Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

Video and transcript linked here.

[William of Brooklyn]

A point I made elsewhere: Get rid of due process, and you can be sure OJ won't walk free after obviously committing two murders. But due process is worth the fact that sometimes murderers go free.

[Don Nico]

"I find the left's obsession with this quote fairly lame. "
Amen.

[Poxigah146]

Nobody is arguing that we're not allowed to have any regulations on guns. But the laws in NY, NJ, and CA have shown your hand as to what you mean by "reasonable regulations."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The left" or a few people on that side of the spectrum?

[Armchair]

"we're not allowed to have any regulations on guns"

There are a whole bunch of regulations on guns though. It's when those regulations get so onerous that they being looking more like bans that it's a problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If and to the extent that Mr. Kirk was referring to protecting the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights,"

Why would his comments be limited to those?

[not guilty]

I don't suggest that his comments in fact were so limited. That is why I wrote the qualifying language.

Mr. Kirk did, however, reference the Second Amendment as protecting "other God-given rights." Such rights are not necessarily limited to legal rights as to which the Constitution prohibits governmental interference, but the juxtaposition there suggests that other provisions of the Bill of Rights are within the ambit of what he referred to.

[Michael P]

What a load of horseshit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, rather it is NG advancing a facile argument because he thinks you lot are idiots.

He is largely correct about that, but that doesn't magically transform his argument into a logical one.

[Jmaie]

I would beg to differ, I think that the Charlie Kirk matter has been discussed into the ground.

[Kazinski]

Like I said before that is our longtime national consensus, nearly half of Americans live in households that own guns, and their certainly has never been the sort of opposite consensus to change the constitution and outlaw them.

Deal with it.

[Armchair]

This was explained to you. You went off on tangents about a 1980's movie.

You don't actually want to understand. Let us know when you do.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Charlie Kirk was almost certainly referring to a fundamental purpose of the 2d Amendment, which is to preserve the ability of the people to forcibly oppose an authoritarian government which has seized power unconstitutionally.

Obviously, in so doing, the people wouldn't directly protect any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights; however, their breaking the monopoly of force wielded by the illegal government could (there is unfortunately no guarantee of success) lead to the downfall of the illegal government and the restoration of constitutional government. It is clearly the restoration of the Constitution which would protect those other rights. And so forth.

I would not argue that an armed populace is a prerequisite for the people overthrowing an unjust and illegal government, but the Founders apparently thought it prudent to facilitate an armed opposition. It is what it is. (Until it is repealed.)

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, and this ties in directly to the collective memory of the events leading up to the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, as I referenced above. What you describe was indeed their considered view.

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one who finds it "Ironic" (Dontcha Think?) that an "Anti-Fascist" shoots a Non-Fascist (whatever Charlie Kirk was, he wasn't a Fascist) with a Rifle designed/manufactured/deployed by actual Fascists.

[Michael P]

Hard to say. Did the shooter drive there in a Volkswagen?

[Frank Drackman]

Dodge Challenger I think, the preferred transport of the deprived working class

[jb]

For the "Follow. The. Law." crowd on the recent Korean immigration raid in Georgia, it looks like the Trump a administration has had to apologize to South Korea:

https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10575176

Trump said that he wants foreigners to be able to come in and help set up factories (and may even have paused the deportation of the Koreans to find out if they were willing to stay and finish the factory; they weren't), but it seems like a lot of foreign businesses will now be more skeptical of setting up shop in the US:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly0e4k750go

First Trump was bankrupting the farmers, now he's cancelling the new manufacturing jobs in red states. The libs sure are being owned!

[Sarcastr0]

It was obviously a huge misstep the moment we heard about it.

Like if a bunch of US Boeing engineers were on a trip to France and they got handcuffed face down, mocked for being fascists, held for a week, and then allowed to return to the US.

We would be justified to take that personally, I think. Lotsa money on the line, maybe that'll smooth things over but I'm not sure.

[Don Nico]

"Like if a bunch of US Boeing engineers were on a trip to France and they got handcuffed..."
Just like what actually happened to Israeli tourists.

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing will happen. The plant will be built. Only now, with more American labor. The raid was a wake-up call for companies that abuse our visas.

If Hyundai disappeared tomorrow, would you miss their cars? Probably not. Plenty of Toyotas, Hondas, Kias, Teslas, Jaguars, Mercedes, Audis and US manufacturers to choose from.

[Glaucomatose]

Who cares about the cars? The whole point of Trump's idiotic tariffs was to encourage exactly what Hyundai was doing: building plants to build more cars in the United States. If doing that runs the risk of your whole remote team getting arrested, companies are going to be a lot less likely to bother.

[LexAquilia]

Why shouldn't a billion dollar multi-national company not follow our visa and immigration laws to the letter?

[Poxigah146]

They can fix the problem by hiring Americans to do the job.

[Glaucomatose]

See jb's comment below. You have to set up the plant and train those Americans first, as Trump himself acknowledges.

[Poxigah146]

Except that isn't what was happening for most of the 500 seized. Not to mention that there's no reason you need Korean trainers simply because it's a Korean company.

[jb]

You need Korean trainers if there's no Americans that know how to do it.

To put this in perspective: the factory was supposed to employ 13,000 when it was done. There were 500 Koreans trying to set it up, and they were all on valid short term visas or ESTAs, so it's not like they were trying to use them to run the factory.

So now there's no Koreans and no jobs for Americans. Sure showed them!

[Bob from Ohio]

"no jobs for Americans. "

The business reasons for the plant remain.

[jb]

...and the practicality of building it decreased a lot.

Also (and Trump of all people should know this), business decisions are often influenced by considerations other than pure profit and loss. You humiliate a company and its employees, and they're less likely to want to try to do the same thing again, even if the numbers pencil out the same.

[jb]

"When Foreign Companies who are building extremely complex products, machines, and various other “things,” come into the United States with massive Investments, I want them to bring their people of expertise for a period of time to teach and train our people how to make these very unique and complex products, as they phase out of our Country, and back into their land. If we didn’t do this, all of that massive Investment will never come in the first place — Chips, Semiconductors, Computers, Ships, Trains, and so many other products that we have to learn from others how to make, or, in many cases, relearn, because we used to be great at it, but not anymore."

Guess at least one person disagrees with you.

[shawn_dude]

So Trump will treat Koreans like this but not the Japanese? Chinese? Europeans? Was the only option available to immigration enforcement a violent raid? Didn't someone knock on their door and ask to see proof of legal immigration for their employees first or was "send in the stormtroopers" the only thing that occurred to them?

What's to stop the other manufacturers from withholding collaboration during the remainder of this administration? Why assume they'll take no notice of how the Koreans were treated?

[ThePublius]

"When principle is involved be deaf to expediency."

Hyundai is a large enough company that they could have done this legally. They chose not to, to defy the law. Deporting those workers was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences. We will survive.

[hobie]

Then why do we give special dispensation to the antisemitic terrorist illegals picking radishes in Iowa? Their expulsion would also be the right thing to do. And the welfare queen farmers will survive on yet another tax payer handout.

[Sarcastr0]

The DID this legally, according to the legal implementation they'd worked out previously.
The admin changed the legal lay of the land without telling anyone.
There is no principle at work here, other than you Must Apologize for Everything the Admin Does.

It sounds like your thesis is Hyundai was intentionally breaking the law because they were lazy, I guess. Think for a moment if you think that's how a large, internationally savvy corporation, would actually do business.

Given the ambiguity inherent in all program implementations, telling Hyundai there were some issues with the scope of their visa waiver use was the right thing to do.
It would have taken care of everything.

[Keldonric]

Seems like discretion could have resolved this quietly. Instead it turned into theater.

[Bored Lawyer]

NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in an interview to the NY Times last week reiterated that he would direct the NYPD to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to enter NYC, based on the ICC warrant.

This would violate federal law, specifically 18 USC 7423, which forbids any government entity in the US from cooperating with the ICC, or extraditing anyone to the ICC.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7423#:~:text=Notwithstanding%20any%20other%20provision%20of%20law%2C%20no%20funds%20appropriated%20under,by%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.

Apparently, rule of law does not apply where socialists deem it important to ignore it.

[Commenter_XY]

This is not new news 🙂 = Apparently, rule of law does not apply where socialists deem it important to ignore it.

Something else we learned recently, BL: When a Leftist threatens violence, believe them. And act accordingly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So, do we vote for candidates who promise to conduct unlawful arrests?

[Malika la Maize]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114139222625284782

[ThePublius]

But Trump....

Can't you guys ever address the topic without invoking Trump?

[jb]

Seems like a direct answer to the question, though.

[Malika la Maize]

Projection is a heck of a drug!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? All admins conduct arrests that courts later find were unlawful. What does this have to do with anything?

[Malika la Maize]

The arrest was unlawful and the administration knew it even as they took a further step and deported him. Courts don’t make up that they were illegal, the law was there before the court invoked it.

[Bob from Ohio]

The EO did not specifically say arrest anyone, just described a category. So a fail. Try again.

[John F. Carr]

Arresting Netanyahu would violate his diplomatic immunity. As a head of state he can shoot a man on Fifth Avenue if he so chooses and America's only recouse is to tell him to go home. The mayor of NYC needs to understand diplomatic immunity. He's welcome to gripe about unpaid parking tickets. He can say Netanyahu deserves to be arrested. He needs to understand whose persons are untouchable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, when diplomats commit crimes, you also have the option of asking their countries to waive diplomatic immunity, and if it's a nasty crime, unrelated to their duties, they'll often do it.

[Martinned]

And usually their home country can put them on trial too.

[Martinned]

Netanyahu is not a Head of State, and never has been. Israel has a president, he is the Head of State. Heads of government also have a form of immunity, as you say, but it's much more in the gift of the host state.

[Jazzizhep]

The heads of a government have less diplomatic immunity than the ambassadors who serve under them? And isn’t automatically granted. Got it.

Another heartfelt, but not particularly effective, semantical argument from Martin.

The heads of states that have a separate head of government are mere figureheads. But you knew that already.

I like the system. Someone who represents the U.S., like the Stars and Stripes, that isn’t political is a good idea. Just because another country wants to use the same term, doesn’t mean we change our definition to fit them.

[John F. Carr]

Ambassadors do not get diplomatic immunity until the host country approves the choice. If Trump names me ambassador to Israel I don't get immunity in Israel until the Israeli government accepts me. Lesser diplomats presumptively get diplomatic immunity and the host country must take action to deny it.

Under American law, if Netanyahu is a head of government rather than a head of state he still gets an A-1 visa with complete diplomatic immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_visa

[Jazzizhep]

I guess you can draw a line between “acceptance confers immunity” and “declining rejects immunity.” I am not sure where you draw the line. I am sure it makes no difference.

The same goes for an A-1 visa exchanging issuance for acceptance.

[Martinned]

Yes, the NYPD can't arrest Netanyahu absent a change in the law. (Either a statute or the US ratifying the Rome Statute.)

[Bored Lawyer]

Mistake. The correct cite is 22 US 7423. The link is correct.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wait, a candidate running for office made a campaign promise he would have no ability to keep? That's nuts.

I love the move: make a sweeping statement about all socialists based on something this one guy said.

[Jazzizhep]

Internet meet Adolphus.

Just read this thread at how many people attribute one person’s statements to entire groups—both sides.

But the fact he wants to do it matters. And the amount of people who agree with him also matters as to including socialists.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not sure what arresting Netanyahu has to do with socialism. If I were the one so hawkish on socialism, I would be more up in arms about the US owning 10 percent of Intel.

[Jazzizhep]

I am much less up in arms than the U.S. owning 78% of GM and having a majority of chairs on the board. That’s just me.

Biden already gave them the money. Trump demanded we get stock in return with a non-veto stake.

He didn’t say it was socialistic to arrest him. He said socialists don’t think they need to follow the law. It’s still non-sensical, but only as much as your lack of comprehension.

[Sarcastr0]

Grants don't work like that.
Socialism doesn't work like that.
The bailout was nothing like Trump just strongarming a company to let the government own part of it.

You're deflecting.

[M L]

What can be learned from the Charlie Kirk event?

If you are a mainstream conservative Christian, millions and millions of leftists in this country want you to be killed. And some additional amount at least doesn't mind if you are killed.

Now, among those millions, presumably a number of them have an ounce of political savvy. And that number will not publicly admit they want to kill conservative Christians, since that would not help their cause. Instead, they will conceal this fact and publicly state the opposite.

[Martinned]

What can be learned from the Charlie Kirk event?

If you are a mainstream conservative Christian (...)

I'm not sure how you connect those two. As has been exhaustively established (e.g. above, passim), Charlie Kirk was not a mainstream conservative Christian. He was a far right extremist that the church (any of them) ought to be ashamed to be associated with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte

[damikesc]

An extreme leftist calling anybody a far right extremist could not mean conceivably less.

You are still not getting it --- Charlie was the NICE one. There will be far less nice ones that will follow.

[Malika la Maize]

Nice threat!

[damikesc]

Not a threat. Statement of reality.

Do you think the Right will be nearly as passive and nice in the future? It makes no sense to do so. We have learned that a) your side will kill ours and b) your side will also celebrate it happening.

Unity is simply not possible.

[Randal]

As if. Even if TR turns out to be a mega-leftie, the right's death toll is way higher. We'd have to go on a killing spree to catch up.

[damikesc]

You can continue lying if you wish.

We are going to abide by the rules you set up.

You're going to HATE it.

[Randal]

a) I'm not going to hate it because I'm not the snowflake you are and b) it's nothing new, your side has been doing political assassinations for a while now and c) it's not going to work, this isn't an area where average Americans will accept an escalating tit for tat.

[Martinned]

To begin with, I vote centre right. That's how I ended up with VC in the first place. In US terms, you can think of me as somewhere in the vicinity of presidential candidates like McCain and Romney. The fact that the GOP shifted far to the right/populist side doesn't mean that I've suddenly become "an extreme leftist".

And the fact that there may be worse people than Charlie Kirk to follow is all the more reason for Americans to urgently take steps to defend their democracy. Endless lawsuits won't cut it. Take to the streets to speak out, or wake up with a democracy in name only. Russia has elections too.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Take to the streets to speak out, or wake up with a democracy in name only. "
Glad you approve of the UK finally waking up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As has been exhaustively established (e.g. above, passim), Charlie Kirk was not a mainstream conservative Christian. He was a far right extremist

As "exhaustively established" by your repeated regurgitation of internet bullshit like the "He advocated stoning gays to death" one, in spite of so many of them having already been "exhaustively established" as bullshit? BTW, at least two of Kirk's notable friends were Jillian Michaels and Dave Ruben, both of whom are openly lesbian/gay, with the latter having been married to a man for the past decade. Both also were actively involved with Kirk's Turning Point organization, and spoke at events held by it.

[Malika la Maize]

I can’t be a racist, I’ve got this black friend!

[Jazzizhep]

More importantly they consider him friends. That matters even if you think it doesn’t. And no, they aren’t self-hating. They are quite self-assured and proud.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I encourage you to keep trying, even though you've already firmly established yourself as a pathologically lying simpleton.

[Jazzizhep]

Remember, anybody to the slightly left of George H.W. Is far-right to Martin.

Your subjective terms spoon-fed by MSM don’t mean shite.

Answer me this; who supports DJT that you don’t think is far-right? The guy who just won the popular vote.

Who do you think supports women only in women spaces and sports is not far right? An opinion that is supported by a vast majority of Americans. Same with treating children with life altering drugs.

Marin; the guy who thinks the Overton Window uses as its data points himself and himself alone.

[Martinned]

You realise that this entire comment simply shows that the US is seriously fucked up as a society, right?

[Jazzizhep]

Yep. Ideas you don’t like are popular so the country is fucked. Wasn’t Brett saying this to you earlier, or was that a different unhinged prog?

You ever think your vastly unpopular views makes you the outlier? Of course you haven’t.

[Malika la Maize]

What can be learned from the Pelosi event?

If you are a mainstream Democrat, millions and millions of conservatives in this country want you to be home invaded, attacked and nearly killed. Heck, they’ll joke about it, including the man they vote for for President!

[Frank Drackman]

I'm agreeing with you again Queenie, you trying to get in my head? (Off the Market)
Yes, Paul Pelosi's assault was no laughing matter, Gay Domestic Violence is an Ish-yew that must come out of the closet!!!!

FRank

[ducksalad]

Instead, they will conceal this fact and publicly state the opposite.

You aren't paranoid enough. The politically savvy ones will even pretend to not be leftists. When you attend services at the First Mainstream Conservative Christian Church, the person sitting to your left or right could be an infiltrator. As the Robinsons found out, it could even be a member of your own family. Matthew 5:29.

[Sarcastr0]

What I’ve learned is the MAGA right was soooo hoping to blame the left that when events didn’t cooperate they’re gonna try anyway.

Pretty sad state of affairs to be so nihilistic and cynical, but no one is surprised M L is at the forefront.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? What events didn’t cooperate?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Hard to say, since we still don't know the motive for the killing. We have some nebulous second and third hand accounts of what his motive might have been.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hard to say,"

I know, right? But some people just want to say anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

The shooter wasn't a transgender leftist. Y'all were winding up for something terrible those first couple of days.

And hey, I was looking up something else and came across this:

"TwelveInchPianist

We really should stop trying to blame people other than assassins and would-be assassins for assignations and assassination attempts."
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/15/the-trump-leaks-are-far-worse-than-the-dobbs-leak/?comments=true#comment-10724072

Changed your mind?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The shooter wasn't a transgender leftist. Y'all were winding up for something terrible those first couple of days."

Wtf? The dude who's been going off on nutpickers the last few days is focused on the guy or two who said the shooter was trans?

And it looks like the shooter was a leftist who was shacked up with a transgender guy, so it looks like in this case the nuts were pretty farging close.

"Changed your mind?"

Huh? When have I ever blamed anybody but the shooter for the shooting, you ridiculous dumbfuck?

[Sarcastr0]

Nutpicking? From the President on down y'all can't stop writing villain monologues

When have I ever blamed anybody but the shooter for the shooting, you ridiculous dumbfuck?

You blamed the left for *killing tolerance* a couple of days ago, you crazy embittered man!
And you signed onto the cancel culture nonsense.
And you are calling quoted posts from Kirk lies.
And you don't know what gaslighting is.

Just...be less broken.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The President said the killer was trans?

I guess you're admitting that your insinuation that I blamed someone other than the assassin for the assassination was bullshit.

And can you cite where I called a post from Kirk a lie that wasn't a lie?

What a dishonest little shit you are.

[M L]

As usual, I don't know what Sarcastro is ranting about, but you can bet it's asinine and not worth trying to ascertain.

Anyway, as I said, millions of people are liking and celebrating this. They want mainstream conservative Christians to be killed. At least the ones who bother to speak up, anyway.

[Randal]

Oh give me a break. You guys were all liking and celebrating the Pelosi and Minnesota attacks, even here. We didn't even try to cancel you for it!

If another assassination happens, god forbid, with a right-wing perp, you'll no doubt be here laughing and celebrating again.

I'm not much of a social media guy so I don't even know if what you're saying is true. But I don't see any of us here laughing and celebrating like I did for Pelosi especially. I think this is just another case of every accusation being an admission from you guys.

[Bored Lawyer]

Pro-Palestinian crowd in California beats hostage’s cousin for speaking Hebrew

Ariel Marciano, cousin of slain Gaza hostage Guy Illouz, was assaulted, pepper-sprayed, and threatened at Santa Monica Pier for speaking Hebrew.
A group of approximately 20 pro-Palestinian protesters attacked a man speaking Hebrew at Santa Monica Pier earlier this month.
Ariel Yaakov Marciano, the cousin of murdered Gaza hostage, Guy Illouz, whose body remains in Hamas terror captivity in the Gaza Strip, described the event to Jewish Journal, a Jewish community outlet for the Greater Los Angeles area, where Santa Monica is located.
He explained to the outlet that he was visiting Los Angeles for his cousin's bar mitzvah when he noticed the demonstrators. He was wearing a Star of David necklace and speaking to an Israeli from Las Vegas that he had met in Hebrew, recounting that "they realized we were Israeli."
"At that point, they attacked me. One of them hit me on the back of the head, and I started bleeding. Others pushed me around and tore the necklace off my neck. I pushed one of the masked attackers, and then they all jumped on me," he told the outlet.

One more installment in leftist political violence.

One wonders where the woke governor of California is. Maybe getting his hair done.

[Martinned]

Link or it didn't happen

[jb]

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-867467

But also there's nothing "leftist" about this violence. Antisemitic, sure, but unfortunately there's plenty of antisemitism going around on both sides of the political divide these days.

[Bored Lawyer]

But also there's nothing "leftist" about this violence."

These were "Pro-Palestinian protestors." That's leftist.

And, sorry, your "both sides do it" does not cut it. Point to me where right-wingers beat someone for speaking Hebrew in the last 25 years.

[jb]

I mean, it's admittedly it's not a beating, but some people might think killing people is pretty bad too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting

"These were "Pro-Palestinian protestors." That's leftist"

That's dumb. Are pro-Ukranian protesters leftist? How about pro-Falun Gong? You just lump every group you don't like into "leftist".

[Bored Lawyer]

No, "Pro-Palestinian" is overwhelmingly a left-wing cause in the last two years. The others you mentioned, not so much.

[Malika la Maize]

They’re just very fine people!

[damikesc]

Do you ONLY cite hoaxes?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, there are anti-semites at both ends of the spectrum...but denying that actively pro-Palestinian ones aren't overwhelmingly (to the point of nearly exclusively) left-wing is just asinine.

[jb]

Oh, we're just going by voting correlation? I thought we were actually paying attention to ideology. Most Jews vote Democratic, so I guess pro-Jewish is also leftist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oh, we're just going by voting correlation? I thought we were actually paying attention to ideology. Most Jews vote Democratic, so I guess pro-Jewish is also leftist.

Was this another demonstration of stupidity on your part, or another demonstration of poorly-executed transparent dishonesty on your part? Perhaps both? I didn't say anything about "voting correlation". I said that anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian activists are overwhelming associated with the ideologies of the left end of the political spectrum, especially when it comes to the issue of Israel and Palestinians, whether those individuals vote or not.

[jb]

Okay, maybe you can explain to us what is ideologically leftist about supporting Palestine (and, for bonus points, not Ukraine)?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Okay

I'll take that as an acknowledgment of the stupidity and/or dishonesty of your false claim that I said anything at all about "voting correlations". Maybe you'd like to follow up by telling which of those two were the culprit, or if both were?

maybe you can explain to us what is ideologically leftist about supporting Palestine (and, for bonus points, not Ukraine)?

This is one is slightly less egregious, but still a misrepresentation of what I said. Again (pay attention this time, and sound out the words if it helps), I said that...

"anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian activists are overwhelming associated with the ideologies of the left end of the political spectrum, especially when it comes to the issue of Israel and Palestinians"

What I did NOT say:

"supporting Palestine is ideologically leftist".

Take all the time required for you to figure out why those are two very different things, even if the universe meets its end by heat death before you're able to accomplish that goal.

[jb]

Hey man, you may just be too smart for me. I don't think your Socratic method is working. It seems like one of two things are possible:

1) People who are "leftist" are pro-Palestine therefore being pro-Palestine is "leftist". This runs into correlation/causation confusion, and as I mentioned above would lead you to the conclusion that being pro-Jewish is also "leftist". But you say this is not your point.

So therefore it must be,

2) Supporting Palestinians is somehow a part of "leftist" ideology. But unless we're going with "things I don't agree with are leftist" that means that there must be something about the Palestinian cause that we associate with left-wing thinking but not right wing thinking. Is it because we like people who were invaded by their neighbors? No, because being pro-Ukraine isn't leftist. Is it because we like people who are oppressed by their government? No, because then being pro-Falun Gong or pro-Uighur would be leftist. Oh, but maybe it's because they're being oppressed by a right-wing government? I guess that's possible, but I don't really hear people on the left talking about their support for Palestineans as being in opposition to Israel's conservative government per se. Maybe it's leftist to not like it when a bunch of civilians are killed unnecessarily? Historically, the left has been more anti-war, but Trump's America First has made a bit of a mess of that except where it comes to Israel. So I'm not really sure I understand the hook you see to make this a left vs. right issue.

And like I said, maybe there's a #3, but no one is explaining what it is so I'm struggling to figure it out.

Edited to add: there's this weird thing going on (lately?) where the MAGA folks seem to think they have this really good argument and that their opponents are dumb for not recognizing it, but they won't actually come out and say what the argument is. What's that all about? If you think you have a good argument, it would be a lot more useful to share it than to keep it in your head and cackle about how stupid or even spitefully motivated other people are for not grappling with it.

[Randal]

What's that all about?

You get one guess.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

1) People who are "leftist" are pro-Palestine therefore being pro-Palestine is "leftist".

Holy shit...you really are as dense as a block of Uranium 238.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Hitler."

Maybe go find a slow 3rd grader or someone else similarly on your intellectual level to help you figure this stuff out.

[jb]

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Hitler."

Maybe go find a slow 3rd grader or someone else similarly on your intellectual level to help you figure this stuff out.

Yes, I agree--that is a terrible argument and exactly the argument you seem to be making since I asked if there's some other explanation and you don't seem willing to share it.

[Randal]

Point to me where right-wingers beat someone for speaking Hebrew in the last 25 years.

Wow, what a retard.

NEW YORK (JTA) – The Anti-Defamation League found that 3,044 total acts of hate, extremism, anti-Semitism and terror were committed in the United States in 2018. 1,879 of these were anti-Semitic acts – including assault, vandalism and harassment.

Of these 1,879 acts of anti-Semitism, 249 (13 percent) were attributable to known extremist groups or individuals inspired by extremist ideology, according to the ADL’s classification system. In a call, Oren Segal, director of the ADL Center on Extremism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that all 249 acts that they were able to attribute to extremists were carried out by white supremacists.

And, sorry, your "both sides do it" does not cut it.

Well, at least you're right about one thing! Both sides don't, in fact, do it.

[damikesc]

Have you checked out their standards for their study?

No, you have not.

[jb]

You'll notice when I pointed to the explicit example of the synagogue shooting, they all just abandoned that line of argument anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-867467
Guess it happened.

[famos11484]

when a liberal receives a summons for jury duty, his eyes brighten with glee at the prospect of earning $15 for a day sitting in an air conditioned room with other neer do wells watching maury before being informed that he is ineligible to serve due to his felony convictions.

[jb]

Apparently when a MAGA gets a jury summons they get mad that they have to help support our Constitution by sacrificing some time to make sure we can actually have trials.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd love to get a jury summons, it would be an interesting experience. (And my employer supplements jury pay.) Alas, the only time it happened I had already bought a non-refundable international airline ticket, so they excused me.

[Mr. Bumble]

99% of the time it will be the most boring thing you ever do.

[not guilty]

Much of what transpires in a jury trial is tedious.

I have been summoned for jury duty once in federal court and once in state court. The federal court did not require any jurors during the month for which I was summoned. (Fortunately there was a telephone check-in during the evening to see whether to report to the courthouse the next day, so I didn't have to appear in person.) In state criminal court, I was excused on a peremptory challenge after only one round of voir dire.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it would be an interesting experience. "

Maybe if you get on a jury. My service, 4 days, no call. So just annoying because I missed 4 days of work for squat.

[Ska]

The one time I was actually put on a jury was kind of awful. Charges were burglary and related crimes for trespassing, using burglar's tools, etc. The evidence was compelling as far as proof this guy sold someone else's jewelry to a pawn shop and was wrongfully in possession. The defendant signed a statement saying he took the jewelry. I talked the jurors out of the burglar's tools charge (evidence: there was a screwdriver in the backyard of a large multi-family residential building; nothing about that as a standalone was evidence of anything, and finding a tool in a backyard sounds pretty common anywhere).

Found the defendant guilty on most charges. Guy was an immigrant and got deported back to DR. Has a kid here. It sucked. I helped make a ruinous decision that was fair and just (the victim was in fact a victim), and just felt bad about the whole thing. I wasn't going to lie to protect the defendant, but it didn't feel like I made my city a better place. I have no idea how the plaintiff felt.

[Jmaie]

I would classify getting a burglar off the streets as making the city a better place. YMMV.

Long ago, I spent two weeks sitting in a jury room in California. Every day, the woman in charge would give the same spiel about timeliness and other rules, referring to us as “my jurors” as in, “I wouldn’t want my jurors to get in trouble for an unexcused absence. The fine for that is $250.”

A gentleman in suit and tie with a briefcase, which made us think he was a lawyer, asked, “can I pay the $2500 now.“ She seemed entirely perplexed by the question…

[ducksalad]

The most interesting part that you actually have a good chance of witnessing is fellow members of the pool answering questions during voir dire, and seeing who strikes out.

It occasionally got so heated that members of pool were spontaneously jumping up and accusing others of being bad people. The prosecutor and defense lawyers didn't object, in fact, they were taking notes - free information without burning their quota of questions.

You're the kind of person who will want to give a careful, nuanced answer. Sadly, that won't help your chances.

[jb]

The one time I was actually selected for a jury (civil trial), The parties settled as soon as we were empanelled.

[Jazzizhep]

I have received four jury summons. On three of them, I carried as reading material my subscriptions to Scientific American and Nature being told that defense doesn’t really like scientists (I am not one). I was struck in all three.

Now that I have time, I wanted to be a juror. I got to the courthouse and court was cancelled. I asked if I could immediately be put back on the eligible list. They said no.

[Bunny495]

I have been on a jury twice and both times I wanted to impose additional time on the perps who were found guilty for criminal stupidity. In the first trial the perp (who was white) was driving in the hood at 12:00 in the afternoon slapping the side of his car through an open window and asking a black female (who may have been in the sex trade while the DA represented her as a coed even though she was in beauty college) for sex. She refused and thew an open bottle of vodka at the car but missed and then claimed she was able to see through the open car window he had dropped his pants and his penis was exposed (I questioned how she was so far from the car that she missed hitting the car but still could see through the window). She also claimed he wanted anal sex and used the N word. The perp disputed this and said he only wanted doggy style and called her a jungle bunny (not sure if this helped or hurt the perp's case). While mildly entertaining as W. C. Fields said "I would rather be in Philadelphia". Thing is on a weekend night in the entertainment district this would probably be acceptable behavior for both of them. Bottom line guilty verdict.

The second time it was a shoplifting trial. A male and female with a baby bag (but no baby) went in a store and the male grabbed a couple of cartons of cigarettes and put them in the baby bag the female had placed on the floor and walked away. The female then retrieved the bag and walked out of the store. The male had already been found guilty in a separate trial and testified the female was an innocent vic of his theft. Another guilty verdict but while not as entertaining as the first trial again (at least to me) another case of criminal stupidity.

[not guilty]

There are some intelligent criminals, but that is the exception and not the rule.

[Moderation4ever]

My father would tell of the time that my grandfather had just been laid off at the local factory. My grandfather went to local town clerk and asked to be put on a list for jury duty just to get the money to keep supporting his family.

[shawn_dude]

Being willing to do something boring in service of your community is a humble sort of patriotism that should get more respect.

[Sarcastr0]

^ it should be a proud civic duty.

We don't have those anymore.

[Bwaaah]

That would be *your* "we."

I and many others still do.

Your cynicism helps fuel your destructive inclinations.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm seeing a few posters here saying they are under personal threat of violence for their views from undefined leftists.

Love to hear commenters on this website echoing the rhetoric behind most authoritarian populist crackdowns on their political opposition.

None of you are in danger; millions don't want you dead, this kind of vibes and nutpicking-based paranoia has no place in a republic.

[hobie]

Being a 'conservative' means you're damn near scared of everything. If they want to fear some phantom menace liberal army, let them.

[Sarcastr0]

Use of the word "evil" in official congressional e-newsletters, over time, by party.

https://bsky.app/profile/dcinbox.bsky.social/post/3lyutx2ruyc23

The right's always been the ones pegging the rhetoric needle.

[damikesc]

Ah, Bluesky. No questions needed there.

*snicker*

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, I've dealt with real threats.

[hobie]

The Epstein files are getting too hot again. MAGA needed a really big distraction. A sacrifice, if you will.

[damikesc]

Yes, having a leftie murder a mainstream conservative for absolutely no reason was really a conspiracy. You got it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Meaningless labeling is a tool of the weak-minded.

[damikesc]

You misspelled "accurate" there.

[Moderation4ever]

I read in the paper that most Americans favor breaking up homeless encampments. I also have hear that a Fox News host made a blunder in suggesting killing violent homeless people. I think we are all bother by homelessness. I worked for years in downtown Madison, WI and every morning I would walk by people sleeping in doorways. The problem is that there is general feeling that we want the homeless to go away with no one really want to do any of the hard and expensive work of addressing the problem.

[hobie]

Killing the homeless will get rid of a lot of surplus veterans.

Ah, eugenics. Another 1938 box ticked

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Charlie Kirk's murder turn TPUSA into TPWorld?

[hobie]

The grift must continue!

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a grift to elicit responses in so many parts of the world.

[hobie]

I'll admit, there was some good that came out of this. Most people never knew the things Kirk has been saying. Now they do.

[Estragon]

“Black women do not have the brain power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”

[Malika la Maize]

Vote Winsome!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did you know the word gullible is not in the dictionary?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's great! Stealing that one.

[Bob from Ohio]

He never said it, that's why she was fired.

[Estragon]

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1679829904026730496&currentTweetUser=patriottakes

[Mr. Bumble]

Returns "this page doesn't exist".

[damikesc]

A functional link would be nice.

...but we already know the quote and you are, of course, lying.

[John 4]

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496

[damikesc]

Bluesky was too busy to cite?

Note how I do not cite Alex Jones?

He's more credible than the clown you cited.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Shockingly, the link doesn't indicate that Kirk said what is claimed.

In other news, the WAPO writer's guild defends the right of "journalists" to fabricate quotes.

[Estragon]

If you believe in something, you need to have the courage to fight for those ideas - not run away from them or try and silence them.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, serves MLK Jr. right for marching in some lame ass "Poor Peoples March" in Memphis.

[Estragon]

[Estragon]

“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

What’s wrong with that? Don’t you want pilots to be qualified?

[Estragon]

“If I see a pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

Spot the difference

[hobie]

[raises hand] Ooo! I know. It seems that Kirk was singling out black people, implying that black people's intelligence is automatically suspect, whereas other races are not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or, maybe he was talking about how airlines are advertising that they’re selecting for black pilots, instead of qualified pilots!

[Malika la Maize]

Which airline advertised they are selecting for unqualified black pilots?

[Estragon]

“airlines are advertising that they’re selecting for black pilots, instead of qualified pilots!”

Well, you’ve made the claim, so I’d love to see an example of an advertising campaign from a major airline saying they are hiring unqualified black pilots. You may post a link below:

[damikesc]

https://www.united.com/en/us/newsroom/announcements/2021-04-06-united-sets-new-diversity-goal-50-of-students-at-new-pilot-training-academy-to-be-women-and-people-of-color-2651374725

When you are assuring half of any group will be a woman or a POC --- you're distinctly not saying that you will seek the best qualified.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But you guys already know this.

You posted the quote, surely you were aware of the context.

You didn’t really thinks it was about low IQ blacks.

[Malika la Maize]

“When you are assuring half of any group will be a woman or a POC --- you're distinctly not saying that you will seek the best qualified.”

It’s for a training academy. Why do you think blacks and women aren’t qualified to be trained?

[Estragon]

“When you are assuring half of any group will be a woman or a POC --- you're distinctly not saying that you will seek the best qualified”

No. You are assuming those folks are unqualified for no reason other than their identity. Example: there are 1M qualified pilots. 800k white. United wants to hire 100k new pilots 50k white men, 50k not.

[Estragon]

And, as is pointed out above, this is for a training academy. Wouldn’t all pilots hired be “unqualified” in the eyes of United before going through the program?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. They’re still not focused on selecting the most qualified candidates for training.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Many of the posters here have always been dishonest sacks of shit, but they seem particularly eager to demonstrated it when it comes to Kirk. I guess when you've invested so much in public virtue signaling about what a righteous individual you are, and how "hateful" those on the other side of the aisle from you are you feel a special urgency to try to justify your own deep-seated pathological hatred and glee over someone's murder for holding and expressing opinions you claim to disagree with.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s gone from most qualified to most qualified for training! Who knows where it ends, but we can be sure TP will be suspect of those blacks and ladies!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, two things that have nothing to do with each other! Imagine!

[hobie]

Estragon, the next level of ad absurdum for these hillbillies will be that the training academy read too many applications from black candidates. Failing that, they'll say then that the Postal Service delivered to many black applications at the expense of white hayseeds.

Once you go down the entirety of the rabbit hole and get rid of all the layers and pretexts, the rationale boils down to what it is ultimately in the hillbilly heart: There's just too many niggers

[damikesc]

"No. You are assuming those folks are unqualified for no reason other than their identity. Example: there are 1M qualified pilots. 800k white. United wants to hire 100k new pilots 50k white men, 50k not."

No, if they thought they were qualified, they would not have had to assure there would be 50%.

THEY think they are not competent.

If they said "The best will be hired" and they hired 60% minorities --- then those 60% were the best. No issue.

If you said "Half will be this group", then that means you have to say that because you feel they would not qualify legitimately.

[damikesc]

"Many of the posters here have always been dishonest sacks of shit, but they seem particularly eager to demonstrated it when it comes to Kirk. I guess when you've invested so much in public virtue signaling about what a righteous individual you are, and how "hateful" those on the other side of the aisle from you are you feel a special urgency to try to justify your own deep-seated pathological hatred and glee over someone's murder for holding and expressing opinions you claim to disagree with."

They have to justify all of the dancing and celebrating about his murder.

Normal people would find that ghoulish.

[Estragon]

[Estragon]

“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband”

[Mr. Bumble]

Just whom are you quoting?

[Malika la Maize]

Isn’t it what your mom tells you all the time?

[Estragon]

My apologies, I truncated that one.

“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge.”

[Estragon]

“The DOJ should release all the Epstein files.”

[Estragon]

“If we don't like how private companies are doing business, we should just start our own to compete, right?”

I threw that one in for the Cracker Barrel people

[damikesc]

Or...the owners of the company can tell THEIR employee, the CEO, to fix the problem or hit the bricks.

You seem to think the CEO is the boss. The CEO very much is not.

[Estragon]

“We have to tell our babies to stop crying.”

[Estragon]

“For future retirees, people under the age of 45, we should absolutely raise the retirement age. I’m not a fan of retirement.”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're not even good at dishonesty. It must really suck to be you.

[Estragon]

“I don’t think retirement is biblical.”

[Estragon]

“Dishonesty”

Ah yes, the new conservative conception of dishonesty, wherein it is defamatory to present accurate quotes from a person without further comment.

[John 4]

What is dishonest here?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What is dishonest here?

That you don't grasp why taking quote snippets out of context in an attempt to smear someone being an example of dishonesty (or why doing it based on mindless regurgitation of the same from propaganda sites is an example of rank stupidity) should give you some pause for self-reflection.

[Estragon]

“snippets out of context in an attempt to smear”

What further context is needed here? Is it a smear to quote the man?

“Now, I will say that for future retirees, people under the age of 45, we should absolutely raise the retirement age. I’m going to say something very provocative. I’m not a fan of retirement. I don’t think retirement is biblical […] You say, ‘Charlie, I’m just gonna retire and I’m just gonna go golf.’ I think, what a waste of the gifts that God has given you.”

[Sarcastr0]

A generalized 'you took it out of context' without the actual context is just deflection, nothing more.

Wuz has been calling people dishonest on here with nothing to back it up other than his feelz for over a decade now.

[Estragon]

Nobody howls as loudly as a conservative confronted with their own words. It is interesting to note which quotes these people feel compelled to respond to and which they choose to ignore.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps the relevant context is that the man was just murdered.

[Estragon]

Indeed he was, as has been repeatedly discussed here.

Again— it is not a smear to say that when he was alive, he was in favor of raising the retirement age for people currently under 45. How you feel about that is up to you!

[damikesc]

OK, Estragon --- Social Security is quickly going bankrupt.

Find a fix for it.

Cannot choose to privatize because your side demonized that idea.

[Estragon]

Mr Kirk may or may not have been concerned about the financial state of Social Security, and could have viewed raising the retirement age for people under 45 as a way to address that issue. That is something you can argue about with someone else. Suffice it to say I personally don’t believe that is the only way to keep Social Security solvent, but again, I’m not really interested in debating that subject with you and it’s certainly out of the ambit of what is presented here.

This quote reflects a moral stance. According to Mr Kirk, retiring is “not biblical” and a “waste of the gifts God has given you.”

How you feel about that statement is up to you to decide.

[Estragon]

If you believe in something, you need to have the courage to fight for those ideas - not run away from them or try and silence them.

[Estragon]

"Democrat women want to die alone without children."

[Estragon]

“They were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad. It was evil. But what happened? Something changed. They committed less crimes.”

[Estragon]

“Jewish donors have a lot of explaining to do. A lot of decoupling to do,”

[Estragon]

“Some of the largest financiers of left-wing, anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans,”

[Estragon]

“Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I’m not going to say Israel won’t exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor/ oppressed dynamic.”

[Estragon]

“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.”

[Bob from Ohio]

It would save a lot of reading by us, Estrogen. to just say "Kirk deserved to be shot".

[Estragon]

No.

As hobie says, it merely gives as an opportunity to reflect on the things he said in life. You can draw your own conclusions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, stop lying.

[Estragon]

You can’t draw your own conclusions?

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, are you insisting that these quotes must indicate Estragon thinks Kirk deserved to be shot despite his explicitly saying otherwise?

You want the other side to be more evil than they are; you can't make it that way by declaring so.

[Bob from Ohio]

explicitly!

[Sarcastr0]

You gonna say anyone who posts Kirk’s quotes to point out he’s bad must *secretly* wants him dead?

Quit being a weasel and come out with the crazy shit your gonna say.

[Estragon]

“to point out he’s bad”

I said no such thing! Let people draw their own conclusions. It might be interesting for someone like Bob or Wuz to reflect upon why they are so defensive about someone quoting this guy without any commentary. It’s almost as if they themselves are uncomfortable with the substantive underlying views. Very curious.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“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.”

Try adding the context, you piece of shit. Kirk was pointing out the folly of selective scripture quoting in response to a YouTube personality who quoted the admonishment to "love thy neighbor" in Leviticus, and how that should include gay people. Kirk's response was to point out that later in the exact same book was a prescription that certain acts...including homosesexuality...be punishable via death by stoning. He wasn't advocating that. He was pointing out the danger of relying on selective quotes for making your point...you know...like you're doing.

Even an abject moron like Stephen King was able to recognize when his stupidity had been called out...days before you decided to repeat it here.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/stephen-king-apologizes-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236516429/

[Estragon]

“Repeat it here”

You mean his words?

“The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

You picked a strange place to stop the quote.

“The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters. Now so how do you best love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth. You don't have to be cruel. You don't have to be un-Christlike in your communication.”

[Estragon]

That context would seem to militate against Wuzzies theory that this was just a larger rhetorical point about the futility of quoting scripture, no?

Glad you added it!

[TwelveInchPianist]

No. But some context that supports Wuzzies point is, "Satan quotes scription plenty."

The podcast is here, the relevant portion is around 1:00:00-1:03:30 and it's not even arguable that he's saying what you guys are claiming he's saying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

*scripture

[Estragon]

“ what you guys are claiming he's saying.”

What did I claim he was saying?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, I took your quotes, given the context, to imply that he was claiming that gay people should be stoned. It should be clear from the larger context that the was not.

[Estragon]

I took the quote to mean exactly what appears to say: that Charlie views certain parts of Leviticus as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

I figured that was why he emphasized that his passage comes “before” the passage he was responding to. But that’s just my opinion. Let everyone decide for themselves how they feel about it.

[Estragon]

“And why is he still in jail? Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out. I bet his bail’s like 30[,000] or 40,000 bucks. Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions.”

[Estragon]

“[It is my] self-described very, very radical view that the country made a mistake when it passed the Civil Rights Act.”

[Estragon]

"It is a growing consensus in the pro-life world that abortion is never medically necessary”

[Estragon]

"You've got to change your name. If not, you don't really mean it."

[Estragon]

"We need to have a good spirit about being made fun of […] We as conservatives, we have thick skin, not thin skin. And you can make fun of us, it doesn't matter."

[Estragon]

“Joe Biden is bumbling, dementia-filled, Alzheimer's, corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America”

[Estragon]

“When I hear the slogan, "make America great again", I'm also hearing, "return America to its British roots”

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“When I hear the slogan, "make America great again", I'm also hearing, "return America to its British roots”

Immediately after praising those roots by saying (among other things) of the British, "You destroyed the slave trade. You stood up to Hitler."

That evil bastard.

[Estragon]

“Evil” is your word, not mine. People can decide for themselves how they feel about the US “returning to its British roots.”

[damikesc]

So, you are continuing to not provide context.

I think I'll mute you now. Time is too short to sift thru dozens of false and misleading claims.

I thought your side disliked "misinformation"

[Estragon]

“So, you are continuing to not provide context.”

What further context do you think is needed here?

“false and misleading claims.”

I have made precisely zero claims. I have provided statements from the late Mr Kirk— statements which you and your fellow travelers continue to insist are without context. THAT is a claim— a claim which neither you nor anyone else can back up with said missing context. What further context is not included here that would suggest something other than the quoted material? Are you uncomfortable with the idea of the US “returning to its British roots”? Are you disputing he said it? Help me here. The video of the whole speech is easily found.

[Estragon]

“I think I'll mute you now

I’m not that lucky

[Estragon]

“I think I’ll mute you now”

Is that what Charlie would have done, you think?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who or what is driving the price of gold close to $4000.00/oz.?

[Moderation4ever]

Trump?

[ducksalad]

This is a tough one, since some of his supporters already hold a lot of gold and think this is great, while some wanted gold but are now priced out. The first group will give Trump the credit, the second will blame the globalist left.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think this rise can be attributed to small holders. It must be being driven by institutions or governments.
FWIW anyone who held or otherwise acquired gold at $35 an once has seen an increase in value of 10,000%.

[M L]

It's about an 8% average annual return from 1971 to now. (Without any adjustment for inflation).

[ducksalad]

I don't think this rise can be attributed to small holders.

Completely agree. But small holders still benefit.

[Bunny495]

The blame goes to the two worst presidents in American history. FDR who took America off the gold standard and Nixon who completed the march to fiat money by ending silver certificates. Simply look at the rate inflation after Nixon's killing blow.

[jb]

As with many other stores of value (like the Euro or the Pound or the Yen), since about January people seem to prefer storing their value in those assets instead of dollars.

Gee, I wonder what's been going on since then.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Actually, the current steep climb in gold prices began around Oct. 2023, just over a year before the last election. Just prior to the Nov. 2020 election gold was trading at ~$1,900, at least partially due to the pandemic. When Biden took office in Jan. 2020 the prices was hovering just south of $1,600/oz. 8 months later it had climbed to a bit over $2,000, for an ~25% increase. It then settled into a somewhat steady stream of fluctuation between that and around $1,650 until mid-Feb. 2024 when it began trending significantly upward. Just before the Nov. election it had already hit $2,805...an increase of ~75% since the beginning of the Biden admin. It briefly fell to under $2,600 after the election was called, but then resumed the upward trajectory that it was already on. On the day that Trump took office gold was at $2,760/oz. At the moment I'm typing this I'm seeing quotes of $3,696. Though there's nothing special about that one data point, I'll go ahead and use it to come up with an increase of ~34%. So a little higher than the increase at the same point during the Biden admin (which, by the way, was in increase relative to the price during the pandemic), but not hugely so.

Add in the steady record-breaking by the domestic stock markets and the economic issues being seen in the EU since the election and simple-minded knee-jerk responses like yours do not appear to be on a solid footing.

[Frank Drackman]

That People will pay that much for it, sort of like what happens with Real Estate, Cars, Food, Airline Tickets........it's like, we could have a "Market"! a ummm, "Free Market"!!!! governed by Supply and umm, Supply and Income, no, umm, Supply and Performance, umm, well Supply and Something, where prices are decided by what peoples are willing to pay and sell for!
Nah..................................... would never work.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To reiterate a point I made in yesterday's open thread, Charlie Kirk's execrable comments about the Second Amendment deserves further discussion.

On a past "may his life be a blessing" thread, I added a few links to argue that his career should not be so honored. The whole proves the point, even if some singular criticism can be refuted.

So, I am not loath to push back some on this, which one person in particular spent a lot of time on yesterday.

Mr. Kirk glibly claimed: "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."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

I don't know how much a good interpretation of the 2A adds to the gun deaths in the U.S., but he supported an individual-based regime. Okay. In that respect, we assume here that the 2A being in place will lead to some gun deaths.

Not even "bad" gun deaths. IOW, gun deaths would include deaths in self-defense. Self-defense deaths nearly anyone here would deem reasonable. For those who focus on the "militia" part, an RKBA might still lead to some gun deaths, including such things as accidents during training or whatever.

Maybe the Second Amendment also leads to some unlawful gun deaths. As with a past discussion on doing away with fraud, trying to stop that by removing the RKBA might be a cure worse than the disease.

The general public probably agrees. They are appalled at certain gun deaths. They don't want to be disarmed. They do support certain regulations. Which fall within the 2A. Well, many think so. The current Supreme Court might not. A smaller group is willing to overturn the 2A if those regulations are necessary.

If and to the extent that Mr. Kirk was referring to protecting the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms does not achieve that. (Except perhaps the right to worship firearms.)

I have in the past noted my preference for relying on other constitutional provisions to protect firearm ownership.

The dissent in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (a local court case cited in Caroline Kennedy's book on the Bill of Rights), for instance, pointed to a right of privacy, particularly of the home.

Self-defense includes defending the home from attack. It also protects a person from personal harm. If one believes in "god-given" rights, the right of self-defense and defense of one's home and family would be one. The 4A references it; it is a "liberty" the government cannot unduly deny, and it falls within the 9th.

[Stanley v. Georgia used the right to privacy as a ground to protect personal possession of obscenity. A footnote noted that narcotics and firearms are different. Others have pushed back on that assumption on both grounds.]

The devil is in the details. How many gun deaths are worth it? What types of gun regulations violate the 2A? (The First Amendment also speaks in absolute terms. Many regulations are allowed.)

The "god-given" rights part throws some people. They might not believe in "god-given" rights. Well, how about "fundamental" rights, including self-defense? Again, what is necessary there? Stand your ground laws? etc. But, zero gun deaths and the number we now have are two extremes here. There is a big middle.

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, horse hockey. H/T Col. Potter (Harry Morgan)

[Moderation4ever]

First there is no god and certainly no god given rights. Right are granted through society and usually through the mechanism of government. I accept the idea of people through our Constitution having a right to a firearm. I am however frustrated that we can not find some agreement that some people should not have firearms. I think even without laws more social pressure to have people act responsibly with guns would improve the situation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please provide your proof the "there is no God".

[Mr. Bumble]

I'll retract that as there can be not proof of whether or not God exists. However the idea of God given rights stems from the belief in natural rights, not dependent upon any person or government.
It is what the founders believed and the Basis for the Constitution.

[Malika la Maize]

Is it the basis for the Constitution or the Declaration?

[Mr. Bumble]

Certainly the basis for the Declaration and thus by implication the Constitution?

[Malika la Maize]

Is it?

[Moderation4ever]

Same reply. Natural rights don't really exist but rather are a concept that was developed by people. For some owning a gun is a natural right and others access to health care is a natural right. In truth nether exists as a natural right.

[Malika la Maize]

God doesn’t suffer fools.
Bumble is a fool that is suffered.
Therefore there is no God.

[Mr. Bumble]

The God that doesn't exist?

[Frank Drackman]

He does, and Queenies an example of His sick sense of humor

[JoeFromtheBronx]

First, there is no god and certainly no god given rights.

"God-given" or "natural rights" are traditional terms, partially arising from the Declaration of Independence. There are secular analogues like "human rights" or "fundamental rights," and the quote doesn't change much if you insert them.

I am however frustrated that we can not find some agreement that some people should not have firearms.

I think people agree somewhat that "some people" should not have firearms. Children, convicted murderers, the certifiably insane, for instance. The concern is the size of the class and the ability to make sure it is properly enforced.

I think even without laws more social pressure to have people act responsibly with guns would improve the situation.

I agree. Many gun owners are very strong believers in responsible gun ownership. Some yahoos with guns and/or loud supporters of the gun ownership and use must really bother them.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the Poindexters like you who think they're so smart with the "There is no God" Bullshit.
If you'd even taken a Freshman College Statistics course you'd realize the series of independent low-probability events that had to happen to result in even a Single Cell Amoeba (apparently your level) are more than the number of Elementary Particles in the Universe (10 to the 80th power, or a "1" followed by 80 zeros)
"Intelligent Design" (refers to the Intelligence of the Designer, not his Designs, as yours should have been recalled years ago) and the "Watchmaker" Theories is how we all got here (some 7,000 years ago)
OK, maybe that trip to "Ark Encounter" had an impact

Frank "Madam I'm Adam"

[Moderation4ever]

Frank even low probability events happen. The fact is that life as we know it is incredibly rare. It is very likely that in the vastness of the universe life exists in other places. Life isn't driven by odd chance but by physical laws. The physical laws applied to the vastness of space and the amount of time the universe has existed mean that even low probability event have occurred in huge numbers. It may be possible that a being like god was behind the physical laws, but just as likely there is no god. And even a god behind the physical laws that drive the universe and biology, have nothing to do with sociological laws like natural rights.

[Frank Drackman]

So you've gone from "First there is no god and certainly no god given rights" to "It may be possible that a being like god was behind the physical laws....."
and all in response to my admittedly, not best argument supporting J-hey (I lean a bit to the "No God" camp myself but I'm more of the "If there is a God why does He let (Insert current Plague/Pestilence/Famine here)????)
That's what we need, instead of Shooting each other, or "Cancelling" how about good old fashioned "Bull Sessions"??? I bet over a few drinks and some of Humboldt County's best Hybrids (I'm more of a Sativa man, you a Sativa man?) I'd have you singing Hosanna's like a regular Hebrew.
That Ark Encounter though, you should go, explain to me how Giraffes happened.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that if it is the case that a being, a god, did set the parameters for the universe and then let it happen, it is really no different than if no god does exist.

[Frank Drackman]

So if there’s a God there’s no God? Sounds like an Abbott & Costello routine

[Randal]

A right to self-defense doesn't imply a right to armed self-defense.

Do you suppose that the right to face your accuser implies a right to face your accuser armed? Does the right to petition the government for grievances imply a right to armed petitioning? No. The RKBA doesn't distribute across all the other rights.

[Commenter_XY]

A right to self-defense doesn't imply a right to armed self-defense.

Uh, no.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A right to self-defense doesn't imply a right to armed self-defense.

In this country, self-defense has traditionally been understood to include armed self-defense. The various ways used to determine unenumerated rights can be applied to get to that result.

Also, self-defense implies the ability to defend yourself in the way that is necessary. In certain cases, that can involve armed self-defense.

Do you suppose that the right to face your accuser implies a right to face your accuser armed?

I cited the right to defend yourself and your home. That traditionally included the right of armed self-defense, including by use of armed security guards. I didn't suppose EVERY right requires being armed.

OTOH, in court, there are often armed guards. The militia view of the 2A would suggest that "the people" should serve in those roles & sometimes (such as if the defendant is dangerous) be armed.

Does the right to petition the government for grievances imply a right to armed petitioning? No. The RKBA doesn't distribute across all the other rights.

Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders were armed, including when they were home writing petitions.

See, e.g., Erik Loomis' new book on "Organizing America."

The 1A speaks of "peaceful assembly" & use of guns in public very well might be counterproductive. OTOH, sometimes there is armed security (often police) at demonstrations to protect protesters.

A militia view of the 2A would suggest that instead of a "select militia" of professional police, such security would be the people at large serving in their militia capacity.

[Randal]

Also, self-defense implies the ability to defend yourself in the way that is necessary.

It doesn't excuse other crimes that you may commit in the course of defending yourself. If you blind your attacker by reaching into your bag of cocaine and throwing some in his eyes, you're still gonna get done for the coke. If you kill an intruder with a grenade, that doesn't make possession of grenades legal.

In other words, you don't have a right to self-defense with cocaine or with grenades. Self-defense doesn't make illegal things legal, including arms.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Self-defense doesn't make illegal things legal, including arms."

No, the 2nd amendment makes the arms legal, self defense is merely a lawful use for them.

"Self-defense doesn't make illegal things legal, including arms." makes as much sense in this country as ""Self-defense doesn't make illegal things legal, including books."

[Randal]

Exactly. Scalia was totally wrong about this in Heller, when he said that but for self defense, the Second Amendment wouldn't cover handguns.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"See, e.g., Erik Loomis' new book on 'Organizing America.'"

Is this the same Erik Loomis that said it's morally justifiable to murder Trump supporters?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Now reports are surfacing of Democrat Supremacists disrupting Charlie vigils, burning down Charlie memorials, and even Democrat Supremacist teachers putting the assassination video on loop in the classroom.

This is that rabid pit bull puppy moment for America.

[Malika la Maize]

Like the kid whose parents wouldn’t buy him Zelda you have no links.

[LexAquilia]

You should look into hiring a personal assistant or something. You seem pretty lost in the real world.

[Malika la Maize]

You can’t back up what you say? I guess you’re used to people saying that to you.

[LexAquilia]

Why do you pretend any links matter. When I provide them you go "the NY Post?, no one reads that rag", "first person accounts? hearsay?", "that video is a deepfake", or some other dismissive fallacy.

Your requests aren't worth any effort on my part, and we've got years of evidence to support that.

[jb]

I usually say things like "wow, Lex actually posted a link!" and then look at them and figure out that it doesn't even say what you're claiming.

[M L]

Just googled it.

Teacher allegedly showed Charlie Kirk assassination video to 10- and 11-year-olds, told students he deserved to be killed

[jb]

Maybe it's this person in Canada?

https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/2025-09-14-teacher-allegedly-showed-charlie-kirks-murder-said-he-deserved-it/

That seems bad. A teacher shouldn't be showing a video like that to students, and shouldn't be sharing political opinions in class. Firing them seems appropriate if it went down as described.

[Sarcastr0]

It's alleged, and also in Toronto.

Sucks, but also getting far afield with the nutpicking.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ted Cruz posted an AI generated image of Charlie Kirk comforting Iryna Zarutska on the train.

https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1967217971622813996?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

So I know there is a long tradition of artists creating works where deceased people who did not even know each other interact.

But this AI image is deeply off-putting to me, because it diminishes both of their humanities. They lived actual lives. They had friends and had families. But instead of that we’re getting this bizarre imagine of an imagined reality to make Kirk some kind of protector saint. But that’s not what happened and it’s not who they were. They weren’t friends. We have no evidence she was a fan And why would she be? He wasn’t exactly pro-Ukrainian or pro-refugee. And it’s not even something happy, like meeting in heaven, it’s recreating the worst moment of her and her family’s lives! Why?!?

Strangely, Candace Owens of all people seemed to get this by first posting clips and pictures of her actual friendship and lived experience with Charlie Kirk.

[Malika la Maize]

Cruz literally has become a toady for a guy who insulted his wife. This guy is not a man (note TP, no mutilation necessary).

[Frank Drackman]

45/47 didn't "Insult" Rafael's wife, what happened was Rafael's cam-pain released a photo of Naked Melania (why they thought that would hurt Trumps chances remains a mystery).
45/47's campaign released an unretouched photo of Rafael's wife with her usual Phyllis Diller Visage(Not THAT old of a reference, she only died in 2012)
and of course Rafael had to do his Dirty Hairy Callahan Impression, you see how well it worked for him.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

But this AI image is deeply off-putting to me, because it diminishes both of their humanities. They lived actual lives. They had friends and had families.

Correct. Cruz is all about theater. This feels like a troll that demeans both of them by not respecting their humanity.

He does the same thing when he is in the Senate, including regarding people testifying. He doesn't provide basic human respect. It's a dick move. Don't do this.

[M L]

Powerful image.

[John 4]

You have to be basically brain-dead to look a that AI slop and think, "Powerful image". Unreal.

[M L]

In the sense that it caused strong and deep reactions and LawTalkingGuy to write a long comment about it (which I didn't bother reading of course, beyond "deeply off-putting').

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe you should. Might make you understand WHY it’s deeply off-putting.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or as an illustration: how would you feel if AOC posted an AI image of the moment before your death where Hasan Piker or Rachel Maddow was hugging you?

[damikesc]

I'd be amazed that, finally, intelligence and AOC would appear in the same sentence without "has no" following AOC's name.

[hobie]

Owing to where Charlie Kirk's soul ended up, if you see an apparition of him floating around looking for fresh souls, you best cover your face and start sobbing...'cause you know where you're headed

[Frank Drackman]

I'm tending to agree with Mod 4 on this one, if I see an "Apparition" of anybody it'll be because I'm in Stage VIII Bejesus Belt Stoned, Charlie Kirk's Earthly existence ended about the time that 30:06 round ended it's journey (I haven't heard where they found the slug, it was a through and through shot, but it had to embed somewhere) You know why I don't remember 1960? because I wasn't here. You know why I won't remember whatever year it is after I die? because I won't be here.
Even if there is a Heaven, would you want to go? walking around in a Robe and Flip Flops like Grandpa in "The Family Circus"?? I can barely stand 5 minutes of any type Religious Programming, but an Eternity of it? I'll take "Rule in Hell" for the Win Alex!

Frank

[hobie]

Don't forget Frankie, in all versions of heaven, there should be plenty of neegroes and Mexicans. Not that you'd know. As an unbeliever you'll be in Christian hell...unless you go to Jewish heaven. It's hard to know which take is predominant.

[Commenter_XY]

Take it for what it is; an image without meaning.

[M L]

Something good that happened.

It's important to pay attention to good things that happen too, not just the bad.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/09/15/report-u-s-revokes-visa-of-brazilian-neurosurgeon-who-celebrated-charlie-kirks-assassination/

[hobie]

In unrelated news, the UK is averaging "12,000 arrests per year for social media posts deemed "offensive" under laws that criminalize communications causing "annoyance," "inconvenience," or "anxiety"."

[jb]

Let us celebrate our free speech hero by kicking people out of the country for their speech!

[hobie]

You know, I could have sworn I've heard our MAGA here bitch endlessly about the UK zinging people for saying shit online. I guess I just imagined it.

[damikesc]

Who has been arrested for posting online?

I mean, in the USA.

In the UK, that shithole to end all shitholes, it is a common occurrence.

[M L]

Correction: Let's make sure we are selecting for the right type of immigrants, who will benefit the country. Definitely excludes this guy!

[jb]

Our commitment to free speech is so strong that we decide whether or not someone is the "right type" of person based on their speech! All you need to do is say things we agree with and you're free to stay in the country.

[M L]

How do you propose we select for immigrants? Or are you an open borders guy?

[jb]

I don't have super strong opinions on this. Selecting on skills seems like a good starting point, probably combined with whether or not people have done things useful for the US in the past, some amount of immigration based on family ties and for humanitarian reasons.

I don't think any of the ways that are good to select for immigrants involves ignoring our other Constitutional principles. So we shouldn't choose based on people's speech, on their religion, race, gender, etc. because those types of criteria are anathema to our society even if the Constitution itself doesn't extend to those particular contexts.

[M L]

So if someone is a Nazi, or a jihadist, or a communist, or advocates terrorism, or whatever, we should just ignore that for immigration purposes?

I don't agree. I think we have to be able to say - no, this is not a good fit, this does not benefit us. At least, if it somehow comes up, anyway.

Beyond that, similar to you, I don't have strong or detailed opinions on how the system of selecting for immigrants should work, exactly.

[hobie]

How about - unlike the recent sacking of civil servants - we don't select based on political purity tests. That's a bit too Stalin for me.

[ducksalad]

Checklist defined by statute that intentionally eliminates most opportunities for discretion or subjective evaluation to be used for or against the applicant. Substantive changes in policy only by Congress.

Not in favor of numerical limits, but if we have them it should either be first come first serve or a lottery. Under no circumstances should some appointee get to select for perceived political advantage or to get a culture war victory.

[M L]

Immigration for perceived political advantage is what we have today, outside of the recent temporary periods of Trump stopping illegal immigration. They bus and shepherd the caravans right on up. More broadly, massive amounts of immigration (whether legal or illegal) is explicitly perceived as leading to a political advantage and is fervently advocated on that basis.

No numerical limits = unlimited immigration, tantamount to open borders, correct?

[ducksalad]

No numerical limits = unlimited immigration, tantamount to open borders, correct?

Incorrect equality. It's all about what's in the checklist. If the checklist including posting a $100B bond, it would be a closed border.

Having said that, my preferred checklist would probably be labeled open borders by you.

[Commenter_XY]

We can afford to be much more choosy about who we let in. The world is a big place. Lots of brilliant people.

[Sarcastr0]

We can afford to punch ourselves square in the nuts as well.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[LexAquilia]

And here Sarcastr0 goes full Ilya with this open border dreams.

[shawn_dude]

Given that the MAGAsphere thinks immigration is a left-wing attempt at replacing white Christian conservatives, the "right type" are going to be... white Christian conservatives.

[Michael P]

The UK has realized that immigration is a left-wing attempt at replacing white Christian conservatives. Germany is realizing it too, to the point of all the non-AfD parties agreeing to toe the official line to keep white Christian conservatives from winning.

[damikesc]

He has no right to be here. If he does not subscribe to our values, he can go elsewhere.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not great if you had surgery scheduled.

[hobie]

Also in unrelated news:

"Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) on Thursday said he will seek to have social media companies place lifetime bans on users who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5498536-clay-higgins-targets-charlie-kirk-killing-celebrators/

Sigh. Catching you MAGA in towering hypocrisy is like fish in a barrel. AI helps as well.

So lets sum up:
1. MAGA bitches about social media censoring posts on hate speech and vaccine misinformation.
2. MAGA bitches about UK censoring/prosecuting posts on Israel.
3. MAGA is all for social media censoring/prosecuting posts posts on Kirk/Israel

Gawd this is easy

[M L]

I don't agree with Clay Higgins on that.

Unless of course you were to stipulate ground rules that this sort of thing is OK. Then you just go all in I guess.

[LexAquilia]

Yeah, conservatives should continue to stand on their principles so no Leftist is ever held to account while the Leftists burn their world down and murder them.

[JohnSmith97]

Meanwhile, over on bluesky, we have endless numbers of leftists making up kill lists. Or should I just link to the 20 minute videos of democrats calling for violence? Or is that all (D)ifferent in your world?

But OMG!!!1 an (R) calls for something stupid and it is the end of the world for you.

[santamonica811]

No, John. You had the integrity to correctly condemn it as something stupid. That was the point. You didn't excuse it, or deny it. So, good on you! Seriously. So few people on the Internet are simply willing to call a spade a spade. Good karma points for you. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

An article on the Boston Globe's online news site discusses a cert petition to overturn a Massachusetts state law regarding gun licensing for nonresidents. The question presented is

Does Massachusetts’ firearms licensing regime, which grants a police colonel the power to deny any nonresident traveler a temporary firearms license based upon that officer’s judgment of “unsuitability,” violate nonresident travelers’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and to interstate travel?

The Supreme Court has requested a response from Massachusetts by September 29.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/14/nh-leads-25-states-in-seeking-supreme-court-review-of-unconstitutional-mass-gun-law/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5280.html

Nonresident defendant was caught with a gun after he got into a car accident. He was charged with carrying without a license. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the licensing scheme was not facially unconstitutional. The defendant could not challenge the law as applied because he never applied for a license. Likely he didn't know that he needed to apply for a license to drive his truck into Massachusetts while a gun was inside.

Contrary to petitioner's framing of the question, the SJC did not rule that the decision to grant a license was entirely discretionary. The State Police can and do make the process very slow and inconvenient. But denial of a license has to be for a reason and is subject to judicial review. See Commonwealth v. Marquis, SJC-13562 (2025).

My gut feeling is Massachusetts wins. Residents have to get licenses too. Gun advocacy groups make much of the fact that there is an 18 month mandatory minimum sentence for a small mistake like walking into the wrong row of a parking lot. People are expected to know exactly where the state line is and exactly what every little law on the other side of the line says. Imputing such knowledge is part of our history and tradition.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait....How does an NH resident not know the law in neighboring MA? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

I agree, I think MA wins.

[Estragon]

“How does an NH resident not know the law in neighboring MA?”

Is this really so unbelievable? A fellow traveler of yours and habitual commenter, a certain T. Publius, was under the impression that he had a “duty to retreat” from a home invasion in Massachusetts— the state he lives in. It was a pleasure to disabuse him of that notion about 9 months ago… see, the VC can save lives!

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, it is unbelievable. NH residents have discussed Massholes and Taxachusetts for decades.

[Frank Drackman]

Notwithstanding Charlie Kirk's murder and the Sexual Orientation of his Killer, can any of you Shysters explain why it takes so long to execute murderers?
1: Douglas Stankewitz, currently on California Death Row for murder committed in 1978
In Contrast, 2: the Lincoln Conspirators were hanged 12 weeks after his Assassination,
3: James Garfield's Assassin was hanged 9 months later
4: Giuseppe Zangara, who attempted to Assassinate FDR, killing Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak instead, was Electrocuted 1 month later
5: Even in more recent times Gary Gilmore was shot by firing squad 6 months after his murders
I get the Appeals process takes time, but 40 years? what takes so long? Jeez, the Pyramids were built faster than that (Heard this Archeologist on Joe Rogan last week, claimed the Stones weren't transported, but were cast in place, like with concrete)

Frank

[ducksalad]

Not to dispute your main point, but I believe Gary Gilmore cooperated in expediting his own execution.

[Frank Drackman]

as did Tim McVeigh, still it took 6 years without him really fighting it.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the case of Gilmore even though he opposed any delay several stays were filed over his opposition. ACLU?

[NvEric]

Here's something interesting :
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/futility-of-trying-to-reason-with

but it leaves out the likewise foaming at the mouth reactions to the group in question.

Rationality is slim and much slimmer than thought. People may have some, but it's rare for it to be there all the time. Anyone one who thinks they are always rational aren't !

[jb]

If your theory of society is that everyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill* (and something like half of society disagrees with you), your theory is probably wrong.

Also if your evidence of the proposition that the people who are "directing cultural, political, and economic affairs" is that some random people in no particular positions of power posted some mean things on Instagram, you need better evidence.

* Or hates America, or want to get rid of all white people or Christians or some other very large chunk of Americans, etc.

[Randal]

Not to mention that all the smart people are on the left. South Park, as usual, has the better take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7lxwFEB6FI

[damikesc]

....then why, exactly, are you part of it?

And how do you explain Hank Johnson? Jasmine Crockett? AOC? Rashida Tlaib? Ilhan Omar? Hakeem Jefferies? Jerry Nadler?

I could continue if you so desire.

[Randal]

I didn't say that all the people on the left are smart. So not to worry, you're welcome to join us.

[damikesc]

I have not had enough head trauma to be a leftist.

[Mr. Bumble]

What happened to yesterday's spammer Jack Jackoff?

[Frank Drackman]

I think you mean Jack Mehoff

[hobie]

And there it is:

"Anatomy of Two Giant Deals: The U.A.E. Got Chips. The Trump Team Got Crypto Riches."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/trump-uae-chips-witkoff-world-liberty.html

I thought the quo would be weapons, but it turns out it is America's technological advantage in AI chips.

[Sarcastr0]

$2 billion. Easy to see a quid pro quo.

This strongly suggests one of the biggest corruption scandals in US history.

I hope some Dems dig in after the midterms.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The Vibrator strikes again!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The term "natural rights" is used in various ways.

There is the philosophical argument that we had rights before entering organized society in a proverbial "state of nature."

The rights are often tied to God. They are also those rights deemed necessary for a free society because of the natural needs and qualities of humans.

For instance, the Memorial and Remonstrance of James Madison:

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.

Of course, some people don't believe there is a "Creator" in the way Jefferson or Madison did.

Natural rights are also rights that are created by society by examining what is deemed by that society as necessary because of human needs, experiences, and so forth. Various terms are used.

Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, for instance, cites "intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in "this Nation's history and tradition."

Legislatures, state constitutions, and courts have repeatedly expressed these things as "natural rights." It is a legal term.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants a "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Art. I: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

These are "natural" rights -- we are "born" free and equal. It is in our nature. The rights are created by society based on nature. They are "natural rights" in that sense.

The term "natural rights" does not only mean "rights found in nature above and beyond what humans create."

The term is used in multiple ways. Relatedly, when people talk about "god-given" rights, the rights usually include those that others would deem "fundamental," such as freedom of speech or personal liberty from arbitrary restraint.

People who don't believe in God express such things in other ways, as some do when expressing religious concepts. See, e.g., U.S. v. Seeger and appeals to "ultimate truths."

[not guilty]

Natural rights? It may be worth recalling what Thomas Hobbes wrote in 1651 about life in a state of nature:

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An organized society is appreciated.

Jefferson in the DOI speaks of how government is created to protect our rights. Including rights that he framed as "natural" rights.

Liberty in an organized society is ordered liberty. Speech, guns, and so on is regulated in many ways.

[not guilty]

In 2008 then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel, said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that [is] it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not before."

President Trump is once more rattling the RICO saber. The New York Times reports:

Mr. Trump, who has downplayed violence from right-wing or other supporters, said that he would like to designate a range of groups, including the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, known as “antifa,” as domestic terrorists and bring racketeering cases against people funding protests.

“We have some pretty radical groups and they got away with murder,” Mr. Trump said, without naming additional groups. He added that he was talking to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, about bringing charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against “some of the people that you’ve been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation.”

He did not specify who or what he was talking about.

It was unclear by Monday evening how these plans would unfold, or how the White House could legally formalize such an effort without curbing First Amendment rights. Democrats have warned that the Trump White House could be using Mr. Kirk’s killing as a pretense to go after political dissent, not just hate speech or violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/jd-vance-charlie-kirk-show.html

As Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand said of the Bourbon rulers of France, Donald Trump has learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. It wasn't long ago that Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba were found to be jointly and severally liable for $937,989.39 in sanctions for bringing a frivolous civil RICO action. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Trump-v-clinton-order-sanctions-usdc-southern-florida.pdf

[RedheadedPharoh]

It wasn't that long ago when your legal reasoning was well regarded, and your posts might have even been looked forward to, but now your reputation is in the mud and you're seen as a goal-seeking, partisan buffoon.

Does your fall from grace bother you?

[not guilty]

Redheadedcan'tspellPharaoh, I have always presented here as a proudly partisan Democrat, and I haven't lost a single bit of my legal chops.

Of course, to recognize the validity of my analysis requires a degree of legal acumen which you sorely lack, so your criticism thereof dissipates like a fart in a high wind.

[Frank Drackman]

So, “Proudly Partisan DemoKKKrat” when did you realize Cums-a-lot(Sorry EV!) wasn’t going to be “47”??? (Talk about your dissipating Farts, I can still smell hers and Tampon Tim’s)
Did you stay up to the bitter end (around 2am as I recall) or hang it up earlier?
Loved how she wouldn’t even speak to her supporters, left them holding their (redacteds) in their hands like Timmy(!) did with his Guard unit

[not guilty]

According to the New York Times, the U.S. military struck a boat for the second time this month, President Trump said on Monday, as his administration continued its deadly campaign against Venezuelan drug cartels that it has accused of bringing fentanyl into the United States.

The strike occurred in international waters and killed three people, Mr. Trump said in a social media post. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/15/us/trump-news#trump-venezuela-drug-boat-strike

If Trump believes his own bullshit about the government of Venezuela, drug cartels and Tren de Aragua, then why the hell has he not asked Congress for a declaration of war?

[Frank Drackman]

Because he doesn’t have to, and declaring Wah results in so many collateral complications….
But hey, could be a great Ish-yew for whoever the Sacrificial Lamb I mean Candidate the DemoKKKrats run in 2028(right now I’m guessing Ayatollah Mandamn-I) I mean do you know anyone who had a family member killed from Illegal Fentanyl? Of course not!

[SRG2]

Did Duterte ask for a declaration of war? Huh? Well did he? So why should Dear Leader?

[not guilty]

Duterte the former President of the Philippines?

How is/was he subject to Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution? That section authorizes the Congress, not the President:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* * *

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Martinned]

I know that was sarcasm, but it never hurts to remind my American friends that Duterte is now in an ICC jail here in The Hague.

[damikesc]

So, he's in jail in a country that is BOTH fascistic AND pathetically weak.

Well, he it IS Europe, so that tends to be the case for most of them.

[David Nieporent]

The same people who mostly falsely ranted that people were celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk will not in any way condemn these murders.

[Michael P]

"Mostly falsely"? A disturbingly large number of people celebrated Charlie Kirk being murdered. Every post I saw along those lines was posted by a leftist.

The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

[Sarcastr0]

All I've seen is people saying those quoting Kirk are lying and/or endorsing his murder.

No flaws may be introduced to the martyr!

[TwelveInchPianist]

And it never occurred to you that some of those people were in fact lying? Including a WAPO columnist who ended up getting fired?

[Sarcastr0]

No one brought evidence they were lying. No I don't put stock in empty accusations. Nor the WaPo firing people, these days.

So much for 'I only blame the assassin' I guess!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No one brought evidence they were lying."

Sigh. Just because you didn't look at the evidence doesn't mean that no one brought it, Gaslightro. And I love the burden-shifting. Shouldn't the people making claims be providing evidence that they're true?

"So much for 'I only blame the assassin' I guess!"

Who am I blaming now, in your deluded little mind?

[Mr. Bumble]

You wouldn't recognize evidence if it bit your ass, you douche.

[ThePublius]

You can't prove a negative. So, it's impossible to prove Kirk never said something. The burden is on the person who provided the quote, to show the tapes or transcripts of Kirk having said that, which she was unable to do. I'm sure when her WaPo editors confronted her they asked for evidence, and she was unable to provide it. So, she was fired. She made it up.

Then she went to the NY Times and they published some bullshit, but likewise no evidence that he said that. Because such evidence doesn't exist.

"One post cited Mr. Kirk’s remarks about Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court justice, and Sheila Jackson Lee, the former congresswoman Texas, saying they did not have the “brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.”"

Karen Attiah took this and fabricated the quote "Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. They have to go steal a white person's slot." She directly attributed that to Kirk. He never said that. She used her racism to extend criticism of two women, both of whom happen to be black, to say he said 'all back women.'

It was a lie, and that's why she was fired. It's really quite simple.

If you can find a video or audio or transcript of Kirk saying that, I'm all ears.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude he never said any of the awful stuff that happens to be quoted from multiple sources and some of which are on video.

For instance:
"Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Ketanji Brown Jackson-- you do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You had to go and steal a white person's slot."
https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1967656828265021537

Listen to the whole 50 second video. The beginning is the lie that Kirk never said that. But keep listening to after that to hear him saying that.

Are all of your caterwauls about lying as badly sourced?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Gaslightro in all his glory!

Your link never shows him saying, "Black women do not have the brain power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot."

That's the lie, dipshit. I mean, read TP's comment again. Your link proves that he is correct, and that you can't read.

[ThePublius]

Yes. He never said the words that Karen Attiah put in quotes and attributed to Kirk. She made it up. And yes, I have watched the video clip, and by providing it, you have proven my point.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh GTFO with your formalistic bullshit.

Kirk said the thing about black women lacking brain power. Parse all you want, you can't weasel out of that vile racist shit.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, you're an ass, and a liar. A quote is a quote. You can't pretend that what she quoted was what Kirk said.

And as far as "GTFO with your formalistic bullshit," you're the one who gave me shit yesterday over religious figure vs. religious leader.

You insist that the quote is accurate, and you are dead wrong.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Kirk said the thing about black women lacking brain power."

He said it about particular black women. I'm shocked that Sarcastro would say that "There are only four black women in the world who matter." I'm going to be quoting him saying that for a long time.

This is like pretending not to understand the difference between saying, "Wayne Williams and OJ Simpson are criminals," and "Black men are criminals."

Based on the reaction to this, I'm starting to wonder if left-wing academia and the public sector understand what the truth is, and what it means to tell a lie. Clearly there's work to be done.

Of course, I'm not shocked that Gaslighto gets caught spouting bullshit and tries to gaslight his way through. That's par for the course.

[ThePublius]

"The beginning is the lie that Kirk never said that. But keep listening to after that to hear him saying that."

Yea, he never said that. Why do you pretend he did? Do you think we didn't check?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, it's on the video. You trying some super weak actual gaslighting here?

What a sad man you are.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not on the video! Holy cow.

Tell me at what time on the video he said this:

"Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. They have to go steal a white person's slot."

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You're the sad person.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You're the sad person."
No, he's Il Douche.

[Bwaaah]

"He's Il Douche."

And that's not sad. It's douchy.

His dog dying...that would be sad.

[Sarcastr0]

He said a list of black women don't have the brain power to be taken seriously. It starts at 39 seconds in the linked clip.

No one is lying here. Take your suddenly strict formalism and shove it up your ass.

[ThePublius]

Sarcaastr0 is a sore loser, as well as a liar.

Look, I'm no the one who fired her; it was the Washington Post. And why, you may ask? Because she fabricated a quote.

This supposed "suddenly strict formalism" stuff is just a desperate attempt to salvage your losing cause. There's no such thing, it's just truth or fiction.

I would refer you to the first law of holes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He said a list of black women don't have the brain power to be taken seriously."

And yet you continued to insist, even after knowing it was false, that he said that "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot."

That was a lie. I guess part of the problem is that you view honesty and integrity as "formalistic bullshit."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And why, you may ask? Because she fabricated a quote."

To be clear, it's not clear that that's why they fired her. They claim that she was fired for violating social media policies including disparaging white men based on race. And she did retweet, on 10/7/23, a tweet that said, "What did y'all think decolonization meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays? losers"

But she did fabricate the quote, clearly intentionally, and that should be grounds for termination.

[Estragon]

This has been pretty well beaten to death but I am curious as to what “slot” Michelle Obama stole? Obviously the KBJ thing is echoing Mr. Ilya “lesser” Shapiro’s self-immolation, but what’s up with Michelle? Is this referring to undergrad college admissions or something? She didn’t have the brainpower to be First Lady? Help me out here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I take it I'm supposed to resist the temptation to respond to this by saying, "A gay man's slot"?

But yes, if you listen to the clip he goes into more detail.

[Estragon]

You’re “supposed” to do what you like. By your deeds you shall be known.

All I hear is the same justifications you people trotted out yesterday for the Black pilots comment. What slot, specifically, was “stolen” by Michelle Obama?

[Sarcastr0]

I also notice Michael didn't mention the whole murder on the high seas thing.

Should be a big deal!

[Mr. Bumble]

Your sympathy for drug runners is noted. Douche.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, mostly falsely. The bulk of the so-called "celebrating" I've seen was not at all celebrating. It was "We don't have to pretend he was a good guy, but it's still awful that he was murdered."

[damikesc]

I will not. Have a hard time feeling bad for narco-terrorists.

I will also not make a dancing video about it then whine if it causes me problems for doing so.

[David Nieporent]

You have as much evidence that Charlie Kirk was a narco-terrorist as you do that these people were.

[gonoxi2051]

cook is the first black female simian appointed to the fed. she sues after trump catches her being a crook. somehow her case is heard by another black female simian district judge, and then the appellate panel contains j. michelle childs, another black female simian. and we all know if it makes it to scotus, jackson will rule for her "sister."

so a group that is 6% of the population keeps appearing to defend another member of their defective, criminal race.

the system is rigged against justice.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, I’m guessing you don’t contribute to the UNCF

[Michael P]

Probably donates to the DNC in real life.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you notice no one tried to make partisan hay out of this dipshit, other than you?

[not guilty]

Poe's Law?

[Glaucomatose]

You sound like the most badass nihilist in the whole tenth grade.

[loki13]

Tenth grade?

You're being really generous.

[Michael P]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/articles/crl5dele2wro

The final stage of the Vuelta a Espana was abandoned after pro-Palestinian protesters entered part of the course in the centre of Madrid.
[....]
Race organiser Javier Guillen criticised the protest, which was attended by about 100,000 people and included chants of "Palestine won this Vuelta", after the stage was scrapped.
[....]
Speaking before Sunday's final stage, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he admired the protesters.

"Today marks the end of the Vuelta," Sanchez told a socialist party rally in Malaga.

[Michael P]

Study 2 at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672231180971 will not surprise readers here.

Thus, in terms of total dehumanization (collapsing across savagery and immaturity), conservatives and liberals were both inaccurate at projecting how dehumanized they would be in the minds of political outgroup members. But whereas liberals overestimated how much they were dehumanized, conservatives underestimated how much they were dehumanized.

[John F. Carr]

The D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to keep Lisa Cook in office. The majority found that she was entitled to a pre-termination hearing and did not need to address the scope of "for cause" removal. The dissenting judge thought that Cook had no property interest in her office and pre-appointment misconduct could be cause for removal.

I find the reasoning about principal officers vs. employees confusing. On one hand, the government argues that principal officers have no legitimate expectation of continued employment. On the other hand, "in this singular case the government has pointedly not argued that the President has unfettered removal authority over members of the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors." The argument the government is making looks the same as the argument it is not making.

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/09/25-5326LDSN2.FINAL.pdf

The court discussed a separation of powers issue without describing it as one: Tenure in office can be revoked only by Congress, not by the President.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cook's replacement, Stephen Miran, was approved by the US Senate yesterday 48-47.
Fed meets today. Will Trump appeal yesterday's appeals court decision to the SC?

[OpinionsVary]

I don't think this is right. Miran was nominated to replace Adriana Kugler and will serve out the remainder of Kugler's term. Trump has suggested he may nominate Miran to Cook's seat but hasn't done so yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Noted and as pointed out by Ridgeway below.

[loki13]

I honestly think that the district court's opinion is the best one I've seen on this. It does a good job trying to credit the DOJ's argument while showing why it ... doesn't work.

I also think it is the best discussion of the history of the provision ("for cause") that I've seen in some time. That was a really impressive opinion, IMO, moreso given the time constraints.

This appellate opinion? Not that impressed. Not with the majority, definitely not with the dissent.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, does Cook have a property interest in her position and if so how?

[not guilty]

A statute fixing a term of office and providing that removal may be only for cause does create a property interest in employment, yes. See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538-539 (1985).

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. I asked because apparently the majority thinks she does have a property interest.
"The majority took a narrower tack. It did not rule out Mr. Trump’s ability to remove Ms. Cook for cause based on the mortgage allegations. Instead, it said her statutory protection from at-will firing meant she had a property interest in her position, entitling her under the Constitution to at least some opportunity to contest the charges before she was removed."

[Sarcastr0]

"The need for some form of pretermination hearing, recognized in these cases, is evident from a balancing of the competing interests at stake. These are the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interest in the expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination."

[loki13]

I should add that in fairness, the appellate court was on a very short time frame.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well yeah, since the Fed meets today and the Senate has already confirmed a replacement.
Do you know if Trump has appealed to the SC to stay the appeals court decision?

[Ridgeway]

I don't think that is accurate -- Miran was confirmed as the replacement for Adriana Kugler, not for Lisa Cook.

[Mr. Bumble]

My bad then.
Thought they were pulling a KJB confirmation.

[Martinned]

Also perfectly fine, and not at all an authoritarian attack against one of the most fundamental values of American society going back to the founding:

Vance, White House promise to ‘go after’ left-leaning organizations
The vice president suggested targeting the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, the nonprofit run by George Soros.
(...)
Vance pledged to crack down on the “radical left lunatics,” while Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said he’d use the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to disrupt unspecified networks that are responsible for provoking violence.

The comments are the latest in a series of promises from the president and senior members of the administration to avenge Kirk’s death by targeting political opponents who they allege foment a culture of hate and violence.

President Donald Trump later told reporters at the White House that he would consider conferring the designation of domestic terrorist organization on Antifa, the loosely affiliated anti-fascism activists that he has used as a catch-all to describe left-wing protesters and activity.

”It’s something I would do, yeah,” Trump said — adding that his decision would depend on whether he has the support from his top officials. ”I would do that 100 percent. Antifa is terrible.”

The president also said he has spoken to Attorney General Pam Bondi about federal racketeering charges against other ”agitators.”

“These aren’t protests, these are crimes what they are doing, where they are throwing bricks at cars of ICE and border patrol,” Trump said. ”What they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

Vance said earlier Monday that he would “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence.” Miller told reporters in the Oval that the vice president was referring to nonprofits and organizations that he alleges are funding violent protests and riots.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/15/vance-white-house-promise-to-crack-down-on-radical-left-lunatics-00564766

[damikesc]

Take. Them. ALL. Down.

[Randal]

Who, exactly? It's going to be hard to prosecute the figments of your imagination.

[John F. Carr]

Here is Trump's $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times and some authors. Enjoy.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71354540/trump-v-new-york-times-company/

It came as no surprise when, shortly before the Election, the newspaper published, on the front page, highlighted in a location never seen before, its deranged endorsement of Kamala Harris with the hyperbolic opening line “[i]t is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump.” [...] The Board asserted hypocritically and without evidence that President Trump would “defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.”

Trump's lead attorney is Alejandro Brito of Brito, PLLC.

[hobie]

"its deranged endorsement of Kamala Harris with the hyperbolic opening line"
"The Board asserted hypocritically"

When a lawyer engages in middle school hyperbolic talk like this in papers to the court - when their wording is emotional like this - I know they don't have any real argument and I know they are going to lose. Amateur.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd check the citations for AI hallucinations.

[Sarcastr0]

Defendants’ Actual Malice Towards President Trump

Defendants each desire for President Trump fail politically and financially. Each feels actual malice towards President Trump in the colloquial sense: that is, each—Craig, Buettner, Baker, and Schmidt, as individuals, and the Times and Penguin’s relevant executives as corporations—subjectively wishes to harm President Trump, and each wish to manipulate public opinion to President Trump’s disadvantage to worsen his current and future political and economic prospects. Put bluntly, Defendants baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way.

[loki13]

....uh. I can't even muster a snarky response to that.

Honestly, even Brettlaw is usually better than that- he might be wrong, but he's usually not THAT wrong. Did an actual attorney seriously put that as the "actual malice" in a defamation lawsuit?

I can't even.

[Keldonric]

Are there any actionable items in this filing that allege false statements of fact rather than just opinions or predictions?

Looks more like it was filed to generate a headline than to win a defamation case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Until Sullivan is overturned pretty much nobody wins a defamation case.

[Keldonric]

I believe defamation requires a false statement of fact, not just opinions or predictions — and I don’t see any asserted up front here. If anything, the Times’s editorials probably helped him with his supporters by reinforcing his narrative that the media is out to get him. I’m not judging whether that narrative is true or false, only that it resonates with his base. Hard to spin that into $15B in damages; honestly, he might want to send them a fruit basket instead of a lawsuit. It just feels like powerful entities using the court system to snipe at each other.

[santamonica811]

It's lawsuits like this that make me think that Trump is senile. Not a whisper of a an inkling of a ghost of a snowball-in-hell of a chance of winning. Who in God's name allowed this mess to be filed? How embarrassing for Trump. How humiliating. I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard. Someone needs to adjust his meds again.

[apedad]

Listening to Trump is like listening to Dr. Evil.

[Frank Drackman]

I love Dr. Evil, most real men do.

[Randal]

I might have known you were a ritualistic testicle-shaver.

[apedad]

[apedad]

Greene revives call for ‘national divorce’ after Kirk killing

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5504117-marjorie-taylor-greene-national-divorce/

Ok, feel free to leave.

[Mr. Bumble]

Robert Redford dead at age 89.

[Sarcastr0]

It's all nonsense from a pretty special representative; not to be taken for reals.

There are plenty of blue counties in red states; plenty of red counties in blue states.
And plenty of fine people who vote all sorts of ways in both.

Breaking up the Union solves nothing, and makes us all worse off.

[Bwaaah]

I agree. (this moment is special)

[Sarcastr0]

Robert Redford died. Age 89.

Narrow range; amazing charisma.

Plenty of bangers, plenty of duds.
My favorite performance of his is probably from The Twilight Zone: "Nothing in the Dark."

[Frank Drackman]

That would be your favorite, I was thinking of it earlier as perhaps his worst performance("The Electric Horseman" was close)
I'm not going to speak ill of the Dead (for once) as he's one of my Mom's favorite Actors (Clint E's #1 and of course, Tyler Durden, and Matthew McConn-a-hey (she only knows him from the Mercury Commercials)

Frank

[loki13]

Reminder-

I know no one here cares, but since we just blew up another boat in international waters ...

1. To date, the Trump administration has not provided any legal basis for these attacks (in other words, any legal grounds that would have allowed these attacks under international law or that would legally justify them).

2. To date, the Trump administration has not provided any actual facts that would provide a basis to believe that their assertions are true that would provide a NON-LEGAL justification for these attacks (e.g., that they knew the identity of the people they killed, where the boats were headed, etc.).

Let my build on (2). It's been reported that for the first boat attack, when there was finally a briefing to a few Congresspeople, they were told-
1. The people on the boat were not identified.
2. The destination of the boat was not identified.
3. The people on the boat did not present any threat to any US targets or assets.

Which .... I don't think anyone feels bad about drug runners. But in the BEST-CASE scenario, we are blowing up boats of civilians (who happen to be running drugs) without knowing who they are or where they are going.

In the worst case? We are setting up our military for really, really bad things. And by "we," I mean the Trump administration and the bloodthirsty enablers who buy into all the authoritarian lies.

[Sarcastr0]

International folks I'm reading think this is a big deal, even as it's not landing in the US at all.
This undercuts our ability to object when other countries do the same kind of thing.

The post-WW2 security-via-national-sovereignty regime is massively weaker now.
That's good for China and the USSR. Bad for most everyone else.

[loki13]

I've seen the international folks.... but I've got a lot of military friends, and they are also really worried about this.

Don't get me wrong- start talking about the rules of engagement in military actions and you'll hear a lot of complaining. But there's also a strong belief that while they can be incredibly frustrating (esp. wrt. active combat zones that we have troops deployed in), they are also the rules that allow us to have moral clarity. You don't want to eff with 'em.

[Absaroka]

"This undercuts our ability to object when other countries do the same kind of thing."

1)Precisely. When Cuba zaps an American yacht as suspected gun runners, what do we say? 'You shouldn't kill other nations citizens on the high seas on suspicion' will ring a little hollow.

2)To err is human. When Madge reports that Fred raped her, I don't want to have the cops just walk up to Fred and shoot him. This is not because I object to capital punishment for rapists; it is because I don't want to get shot by the police because they misidentify me for Fred, or because Madge made a false accusation.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll admit, if I hadn't heard other folks opining I'd have thought it was the same as when we did drone killings back in the day. But it's not, since we didn't do the work to get any kind of permission or support. And that matters.

We're just doing so many things to undercut our nicer gentler version of empire. And I believe in America as a force for good in the world, so I hate to see it go away. But between this stuff, and the science stuff, and the international trade/domestic economy stuff, and the hollowing out of our federal talent...hard to see how we stay on top for long.

Though there is that quote about how a nation can take a lot of ruin, so nothing is sure.

And on a domestic level, I also really hate the whole 'trust us, they were bad guys' thing going on. That sets a pretty troublesome precedent, given the military in cities and promises to target liberal institutions.

Oy oy oy.

[santamonica811]

It will be a bit embarrassing when we finally blow up a boat that is smuggling humans instead of drugs. So, we'll be murdering 15 innocent young women and girls--rather than a ton of drugs--along with a handful of bad guys, on that particular boat. Ah well . . . the good news (for the Trump White House) is that we in America will probably never find out the truth. It'll end up at the bottom of the ocean. So, from Trump's perspective: problem solved either way.

[Sarcastr0]

"People say, 'Oh, people have a right to say things.' Well, actually they don't necessarily have a right to say things. Many people have in their contract what we call a morals clause ... I think it is time for this to be a crackdown on people."

Guess who?

[loki13]

NO MORE CANCEL CULTURE!*

*Except when we are cancelling the people we don't like.

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Robert Redford, dead at 89.

[Estragon]

Is Laura Loomer making personnel decisions at DOJ? These people can’t even conduct purges properly.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.649409/gov.uscourts.nysd.649409.1.0.pdf

[apedad]

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) opened a Senate hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday by calling for civility from both sides of the aisle, declaring “Republicans are not Nazis . . . .”

Very true.

Today's Republicans are childish clowns compared to the Nazi evil.

More like amatuer wannabees.

[Frank Drackman]

Durbin would be dangerous if he had a Brain.

[Estragon]

Knives are out for Ka$h. On the positive side, if he gets canned he can go back to his cigar business and writing children’s books.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/knives-out-embattled-fbi-director-kash-patel-despite-trump-support

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court of Georgia will not put Fani Willis back on the case against Trump and alleged co-conspirators. The vote was 4-3 to deny certiorari with two judges not participating. The majority found the case a poor vehicle to decide on the legal standard for disqualification, considering the unusual fact pattern and poor argument presented by the state in the Court of Appeals. The dissent thought it important to decide when a lawyer in general or a prosecutor in particular could be disqualified on the basis of an apparent conflict of interest. Rules of ethics have changed since the leading case on the subject. The new rules no longer advise lawyers to "avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety."

https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/s25c0587.pdf