Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Constitution Day and Citizenship Day.

There used to be a well-celebrated day honoring new citizens entitled "I am an American Day." Judge Learned Hand gave a famous speech one such day entitled "The Spirit of Liberty."

Here are two excerpts from his short speech.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow."

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded."

Have a nice day.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/spirit-liberty-speech-judge-learned-hand-1944

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nice sentiments from Judge Hand JoeFromtheBronx.
Of course, Jeremiah jumps in with another 'oh yeah? What about [fill in some narrative]'.
Yawn.

[Kazinski]

"Three major assassination cases in US courts today.

Luigi Mangione, Ryan Routh and Tyler Robinson.

What do they have in common?"

https://x.com/davidwebbshow/status/1967994471762796833

[Randal]

Oh no guys, I don't think he knows!

Sorry to break it to you Kaz, but Mangione was a Ted Kaczynski acolyte.

[Michael P]

Is the common thread that David Webb thinks the (successful or attempted) assassin is more important and a better person than their target, and thus he only names the criminal?

Is that encouragement of copycat killers intentional, or just yet another case of him being a putz?

[hobie]

The usual: young white men with guns. All mentally ill.

[Frank Drackman]

at 59 Ryan Routh isn't exactly "young"
oh wait, I'm 63, my bad! These 59 yr old kids today!!!

[Kazinski]

I haven't seen any evidence that any of the 3 have been diagnosed with any mental illness other than progressivism.

Got a cite?

[Frank Drackman]

Clearly TDS for starters

[Malika la Maize]

does the Derangement make
you Write like This(

[Joe_dallas]

progressivism/woke is a mental illness!

[Malika la Maize]

Does it make you forget things you posted a couple days before?

[Joe_dallas]

No - but it obviously causes you to distort and misrepresent the full context of what was written.

[Malika la Maize]

The full context is you said the shooter was trans and then a couple days later said you had not heard anyone say he was trans. I can repost if you’d like. You got busted, just admit it, there would be more dignity in it.

[Joe_dallas]

malika - you are now intentionally lying about my statements

My first comment was in response to NG as to what information supported someone else's claim that the shooter was trans

My comment in reply to NG's question was that there were early reports that the shooter was trans. That statement is distinctly different from any claim that I said the shooter was trans.

I later stated in direct reply to my own comment that the shooter was caught and we will have more info associated with the person will becoming available shortly.

The source that you cited was NG distorting my statement.

[jb]

...and then two days later you said: "The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender."

C'mon, dude. You can say that you were just repeating what you heard, but it's really dumb to try to lie about what you actually said when it's trivial for anyone to go look at the previous open threads.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - Go back I find where I stated the shooter was transgender

My statement was that were reports that the shooter was transgender and that statement was limited NG 's question to someone else statement.

Again my statement that "there were reports ... " is distinctly different that me stating that the shooter was transgender.
You and Milka likewise are intention ignoring my following up statements.

You intentional distortions ring hollow and dishonest.

[jb]

Look, here are the two statements at issue:

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

Then on Sunday: "The only reports I saw were there was a connection with transgenderism. Nothing stating the the suspect was transgender."

Those two statements are not compatible. On Friday you said there were reports that the shooter was transgender. On Sunday you tried to claim that "nothing stated the suspect was transgender". None of this has anything to do with whether or not you personally claimed he was transgender. I'm not claiming you said that; I'm claiming you are trying to falsely pretend that no one did and/or that you weren't aware of them doing so.

[Michael P]

One of these decades, jb is going to get around to fact checking a claim of substance, like Obama claiming to visit 57 states.

[Frank Drackman]

They should all be summarily executed.

[Mr. Bumble]

By firing squad?
It will be ironic if Kirk's murderer is found guilty and gets the death penalty he could wind up with four or five 30.06 rounds through the heart.

[Estragon]

“ rounds through the heart”

Why would you have any confidence in that outcome?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/firing-squad-execution-bullets-missed-target-lawyers-south-carolina/

[Frank Drackman]

Only 3 Shooters? well that's the problem and actually death within 1 minute is up there with most of the other methods (I'm more of a "Lingchi" man myself) so it isn't really a "Problem" anyway.
Next time do the Chink Version, one shooter delivers an AK round to the Brain Stem.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Hate to be the clean-up crew for that.

[Don Nico]

Because the firing squad is not instructed to shot at the forehead

[Your Public Name Here]

"Arden called that virtually unheard of in his 40 years of examining dead bodies and said Marcus told him in a conversation that the possibility was remote."

This was in response to the claim that maybe two bullets made one entry wound. I wonder how many of the dead bodies he examined in 40 years had literal targets on their chests the shooters were aiming for.

[jb]

White dudes that shot (or tried to shoot) one person for possibly ideological reasons.

As opposed, I guess, to white guys who shot a bunch of people for ideological reasons.

If what you're trying to get at is that MAGA is better at murdering people, I'd have to give you that one. On the plus side, the trend seems to be down so that's good:

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2024

[shawn_dude]

Three murderers featuring in other peoples' conspiracy theories?

[David Nieporent]

None of them have ever been in my kitchen.

[Michael P]

The Smasher remains disqualified. Georgia prosecutors seem unlikely to appoint another person to push such a flawed, partisan case.

https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-appeal-georgia-supreme-court-trump-7be50feee272612484490b53592e7e08

[John F. Carr]

I think they have to appoint somebody. I doubt a new prosecutor will keep the RICO charges.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who would want it? The case should be dismissed with prejudice.

[Michael P]

They can appoint someone to (i.e. with the expectation that the appointee will) quickly and orderly wins down the prosecution.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Smasher remains disqualified"

Not guilty wrong again. I know, I know, day ending in Y.

[Commenter_XY]

'The Smasher' still has some 'splaining to do in Court, I am sure.

[Michael P]

Sen. Chris Murphy, early last week: "We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country."

Sen. Chris Murphy, after Charlie Kirk's assassination: "That means everyone who cares about democracy has to join the fight - right now. Join a mobilization or protest group. Start showing up to actions more. Write a check to a progressive media operation."

How many more conservatives does he want targeted with violence? "All of them" is disappointingly credible.

[Malika la Maize]

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/dTedsUK14S8

“Because if we lose this election we may not have a country anymore…If we don’t do something, we all know what’s happened with Venezuela…it can happen, because I see it, I see the people that we deal with, and these people, they don’t love our country” Trump

[Michael P]

It should be obvious that there's a big difference between winning an election and fighting a war by any means necessary.

Should be.

[Malika la Maize]

In which one do you “fight like hell?”

“We fight we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.”
DJT

[Michael P]

One might "fight like hell" in either or both. One can fight like hell in a sports match, with rules and respect for one's opponents. One can also fight like hell in a war to exterminate people one has dehumanized ("whatever is necessary" / "by any means necessary"). The left tends to take the latter perspective.

[hobie]

"Fight! Fight! Fight". Amirite? I suppose he could have just as easily be saying all these years "Pray! Pray! Pray!" or "Love! Love! Love!". But where's the fun and outrage in that?

[Malika la Maize]

Notice that Mikie insists Trump wasn’t using fight in the most common sense* of a physical altercation but in a metaphorical sense, but if a Democrat uses the word war they must be using it in the violent sense, not the metaphorical one (war on drugs, war on cancer, etc).

* take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons

[hobie]

To be fair to Trump, when he got his ear thwicked, he mouthed 'Fight! Fight! Fight!', but we all missed the subsequent '...the release of the Epstein Files!' because the DEI secret service drug his face below the horizon right at that point.

[Frank Drackman]

"Thwicked"??
Yeah right, you'd be crying like a little B-word if you took a 5.56 to the Pinna (lots of nerve endings) remember how in "Fight Club" Ed Norton's character hits Tyler in the Ear?
"You punched my ear? why the fucking ear??!?!?!?!?"
It's like me saying
"JFK's Skull got "Thwicked" in Dealey Plaza

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

lol, Yeah totally
the Same()

[Malika la Maize]

“people one has dehumanized”

“and these people, they don’t love our country”

[DeAnnP]

Using your analogy, when does one urge their team to "fight like hell" after the clock runs out and the game is over? The game results were being certified before handing the winning team the trophy. What did Trump expect his followers to do for him at that point? Genuine question.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually...

From a cynical perspective, elections are just war games, where we very ritualistically simulate having a civil war, and then hand over control to the projected winner in lieu of having a real war.

Actual civil wars happen in democracies when people start to doubt that the simulation is giving accurate results...

[Michael P]

Sure, and lots of sports are proxies for more-direct, less-regulated violence. Football games still have much lower fatality and permanent-injury rates than street fights. I suspect the total injury rates are also lower.

A coach who told his players to go out and "do whatever is necessary" to win would rightly be seen as encouraging his players to break the rules.

[Malika la Maize]

“Whatever it takes, we have to win. This is the most important election in the history of our country. We have a radical left group, going around, these people, there’s something wrong with them, there really is…” DJT

[Frank Drackman]

Some of the worst injuries I've seen have been from Girls Softball, why I directed my Daughters into Tennis

[Sarcastr0]

From a cynical perspective, elections are just war games
Our Founders didn't think like this. People in modern America thinks like this.

Actual civil wars happen in democracies when people start to doubt that the simulation
This is also unsupported.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, early hours yet.
I meant most people in modern America don't think like this. Only a certain gun-obsessed group of conservative Americans think like this.

[Brett Bellmore]

The founding fathers perhaps weren't as cynical as they should have been, or they would have understood why they ended up with political parties.

"People in modern America thinks like this."

Well, yes, and for perfectly good reasons: The government the founders gave us was much further from that model than the government we have now, because it was a much more LIMITED government.

So the consequences of losing an election were less like having lost a war...

[Sarcastr0]

So the consequences of losing an election were less like having lost a war...

This remains wildly incorrect.

You found a neato little analogy you like and want to be true. But it's really, really, not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Analogies are never true. They may or may not be instructive, but that's a matter of opinion.

[Kazinski]

One of the dumber things you have said Brett.

[Armchair]

"From a cynical perspective, elections are just war games,"

Pretty poor war games. One person, one vote makes sense in a democracy. But in terms of war, not everyone is an equal contributor to the effort.

[bernard11]

Actual civil wars happen in democracies when people start to doubt that the simulation is giving accurate results...

Which can happen when the loser persistently lies and convinces enough people that he was cheated,

[Riva]

92 republican groups and individuals, including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point, were targeted by Biden’s FBI in their “Arctic Frost” investigations. 92 groups and individuals harassed for years, having their records, communications, and financial records subpoenaed in an attempt to bolster the administration’s prosecution of political rivals. This in a climate where daily democrats and their media allies demonized any opposition as “insurrectionists” guilty of atrocities worse than Pearl Harbor. (They still do by the way) And Arctic Frost is almost a footnote in years of repressive conduct and corruption. Russia-gate ring a bell?

Yeah, nothing banana republic to see here.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot can’t link.

[Riva]

Thanks for the sincere honest substantive response. You could have parroted a dehumanizing insult but didn’t. And good point but I don’t usually link to my own comments.

[Malika la Maize]

Boy doesn’t get it can’t link to sources for claims within its own comments?

[Riva]

Some might misperceive your ignorance for trollish sealioning. But I guess you simply have confused me with a newsfeed. I notice many AP links from you so I expected you to be informed of current events. Next time I will not give you the benefit the doubt and simply assume you know nothing

[LexAquilia]

It's AP, so of course he's woefully ignorant of current events.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot can’t respond.

[not guilty]

If it weren't for ipse dixits, Riva would have no dixits at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Unlike NG, who has dixits in his mouth all the time.

[Riva]

iI’s a comment on current news. Information on “Arctic Frost” is public knowledge. I even sum up some of it. My advice, try educating yourself both on logic and current events before commenting. And look up “sealioning.” You trolls like that almost as much as projection.

[David Nieporent]

Remember, bot aren't programmed to have conversations; they're just programmed to repost talking points found elsewhere. It's not that Riva is unwilling to post actual support for those points; it's that Riva is unable to do so.

Riva's inputs don't provide support, because if they did it would reveal that while "Arctic Frost" exists, it's just like the fake-and-quickly-forgotten "scandal" from a month ago about the supposed problems with the Russia ICA report: an attempt to turn the entirely reasonable investigation of Trump's crimes (in this case, his treasonous conspiracy to overthrow the government) into something problematic.

[David Nieporent]

Or think.

[hobie]

I don't see what talking about Kirk has to do with the White House ballroom.

[Commenter_XY]

Senator Murphy is dancing on the grave. So are many others. That is what it is.

[not guilty]

XY, what has Senator Murphy said or done that would constitute dancing on anyone's grave?

[bernard11]

You know, Michael, if it wasn't already clear that you are hopelessly stupid, this would seal it.

Here's a clue: writing a check is not violence.

[Malika la Maize]

In May, Mr. Witkoff’s son Zach announcedthe first of the deals at a conference in Dubai. One of Sheikh Tahnoon’s investment firms would deposit $2 billion into World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency start-up founded by the Witkoffs and Trumps.

Two weeks later, the White House agreed to allow the U.A.E. access to hundreds of thousands of the world’s most advanced and scarce computer chips, a crucial tool in the high-stakes race to dominate artificial intelligence. Many of the chips would go to G42, a sprawling technology firm controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon, despite national security concerns that the chips could be shared with China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/trump-uae-chips-witkoff-world-liberty.html

[hobie]

It is surmised that AI will be the last nail in the coffin of the hope for democracy in the kingdom states...allowing unstoppable family rule for the next thousand years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Potentially, yes, and not just in the kingdom states: If you can combine AI with robots to run lights out factories, you just stop NEEDING most people, and so almost everybody but the owners of the AI/factories ends up with no negotiating power at all, and the people who do retain some don't actually have a lot.

This is why we really need ownership of capital dispersed through the population, instead of concentrated. The value of labor, and thus its influence and remuneration, is continually declining relative to capital, and will eventually go to approximately zero. And potentially within a few decades, even!

This is where idiot leftists start talking about nationalizing things, not understanding that when the government nationalizes industry, it isn't the people who "own" industry, it's whoever controls the government. So that nationalizing industry is just a way of making ownership MORE concentrated.

It has to be REAL ownership, the sort accompanied by control, that is dispersed population-wide, not just nominal ownership, like the sort average people get by owning stocks managed by funds that are often not terribly interested in the welfare of their investors.

I think that some sort of affiliation based organization structure, where capital was owned by groups you could voluntarily join, (And join several, even.) might help. Membership organizations can have more member oriented interests, if organized appropriately, and not absurdly large.

Imagine a future where the AI and factories are largely owned by fraternal organizations, the Arbor society, and so forth.

[Sarcastr0]

This is where idiot leftists start talking about nationalizing things

I'm sure a few do, but 'AI means we should nationalize things' is not really showing up much on the public square. The leftists in your head are acting up again.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the societal transforming nature of LLMs is vastly overstated. And LLMs having sucked up most of the attention and cash, other AI's are stalled at best.

I personally also have more faith in capitalism to adapt and find useful things for workers to do than do the silicon valley supposed xtreme capitalists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course capitalism will find useful things for people to do, even under the near worst case of this. It's just that, because the capitalists won't have a dire need for people to do those things, they won't be paid very well for doing them.

[shawn_dude]

To extend your example...

If the people aren't employed they cannot consume and demand for goods produced by capitalist factory owners will decline as will tax revenue for the governments that support those capitalist factory owners.

[William of Brooklyn]

This raises the questions of guaranteed income, with all the social and political challenges that includes, as unskilled, semi-skilled, and even some highly-skilled labor can be, and eventually is, replaced/automated. This is a much larger question than just the enabling technologies, such as robotics, automation, and AI.

[Sarcastr0]

This raises none of those questions.

I mean, those are interesting questions, but they aren't raised here.

I see no urgency requiring a current policy change in that area.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's an open thread, douche.
You don't get to decide which questions can be raised and in what context.

[bernard11]

For the first couple of paragraphs there I thought you had become a Marxist. Let the people control the means of production and prevent the exploitation of the workers.

I think that some sort of affiliation based organization structure, where capital was owned by groups you could voluntarily join, (And join several, even.) might help. Membership organizations can have more member oriented interests, if organized appropriately, and not absurdly large.

AFAICT, there is nothing stopping people from forming such organizations. Of course, to join one you would need to contribute capital, and then you reproduce some of the issues of (lack of) shareholder power we have today.

I agree that mutual fund companies ought to stop kowtowing to management as much as they do.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody who was familiar with real world application of Marxism would associate Marxism with the people ACTUALLY controlling the means of production, or preventing the exploitation of the workers. Marxism stops at the creation of a dictatorship, the state never withers away. Indeed, I'd say that Marxism survives only as an academic excuse for the creation of a dictatorship.

In the real world, while free market capitalism isn't perfect, it is much, much better at both those goals.

But it is becoming less and less effective at both goals as scaling efficiency and network effects drive companies to grow beyond human scale, and converge on being effective monopolies.

"AFAICT, there is nothing stopping people from forming such organizations."

I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing", but it wouldn't require a revolution.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Nobody who was familiar with real world application of Marxism would associate Marxism with the people ACTUALLY controlling the means of production, or preventing the exploitation of the workers. Marxism stops at the creation of a dictatorship, the state never withers away.

Do you think I was welcoming you to Marxism? I wasn't. My point was simply that what you wrote sounded a bit Marxist, until you got to your solution.

[bernard11]

Me: "AFAICT, there is nothing stopping people from forming such organizations."

Brett: I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing", but it wouldn't require a revolution.

Suppose you and I and a bunch of others wanted to pool our shares in some company and vote as a bloc. Why couldn't we? It's legal, and would require maybe a touch of organization.

Of course we'd have to have a significant number of shares to make a difference, and that's not too likely.

Again, I think the way to accomplish this is to persuade mutual fund companies to do a better job of representing shareholder interests. They have the resources needed - both money and staff - and own plenty of shares.

[bernard11]

Wait. What is AI going to do, and for who, and who is going to tell it what to do.

Sure, it can run a terrific shoe factory, but it won't know what kind of shoes to make unless it has customers, and if nobody is making a decent income where do the customers come from?

I guess it could just make whatever the owner tells it, but it still needs customers, unless you want to give out the shoes for free, which is a bit impractical.

[Malika la Maize]

The main story here is the conflict of interest/corruption. The same people who were up in arms about a VP’s son working at a foreign company because there may be corruption and inappropriate influence are shrugging while a President and his envoy do foreign policy with entities that they are engaging in multi-million dollar deals.

[SRG2]

Ah but there's the Trump Exception.

[Michael P]

More damage from minimum wage hikes:

Following a 1-standard-deviation increase in the minimum wage, firms reduce their investment rate (the ratio of capital expenditure to capital stock) by 3.08 percentage points. The negative impact is more acute for firms with a higher fraction of minimum wage workers, stronger employment protections, or higher labor intensity.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/733119
(Hat tip Tyler Cowen)

[Malika la Maize]

Minimum wage hikes will make prices go up because they raise the costs of labor inputs.

Now do mass deportations of workers.

[Michael P]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/

I am reminded, again, why I put you on mute.

[Malika la Maize]

Because I routinely humiliate your talking points? Americans who don’t do these low paying jobs are not going to rush into the labor force when those who do them for low paying jobs are deported unless the wages go up to entice them. They’re free to do them now for the low wages!

[Michael P]

No, because a 13-year-old makes more cogent and sensible points than you do. Now back on mute you go.

[Malika la Maize]

What a sensible, cogent point!

Projection is a hell of a drug

[Frank Drackman]

Ahh did widdle Qweenie get his widdle fee-wings hurt??
And you didn't end your last sentence with a Period, what are you?
an Ignoramus??

Frunk

[Malika la Maize]

Should I go into a rent schtick with deranged capitalizations, sentence spacing, punctuation and such now?

Somebody got their feelings hurt, and ran away as usual after trying get in the last dig (also as usual).

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know Mr. Bones, why DID da Chicken cross the road?????

[Bwaaah]

To find the missing period?

[Malika la Maize]

Are you talking about your mom again Bwaaah?

[not guilty]

She had heard that some men were laying a sidewalk and she wanted to see how that was done?

[not guilty]

The real reason the chicken crossed the road was to show the armadillo that it could be done.

[Life of Brian]

Participation rate by gender paints an even more telling picture, with men's participation having fallen nearly 8% since 2000 compared to 3% for women.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s enough of your man bashing Brianna!

[shawn_dude]

Cross-reference gender with the average age of the men who cease to participate and you'll see some interesting numbers.

[Life of Brian]

Do you have that handy? I can get the current distribution easily enough, but that doesn't show how the various age bands have trended.

[shawn_dude]

Did a quick Google to find the study I was thinking of but couldn't quite nail it. Found this related report:

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

[Life of Brian]

Thanks. I was able to find a BLS chart that includes 2004, 2014, 2024, and projects 2034. It shows a 1-2 point dip in the 55+ age band from 2014 to 2024, but then each 55-64 sub-band under that shows a 1-2% increase.

The broader 55+ dip appears to be driven by the increasing age of the Boomer contingent, which swells the denominator at an increasingly lower participation rate as they pass through the 65-74 and 75+ sub-bands.

So while it's always been rougher for older folks particularly in areas like tech and the employment market in general requires more flexibility/nimbleness than the "company man" culture back in the day, the broader statistics don't seem to reflect ProPublica's claims of "forced retirement" -- at least under the common understanding of those words.

[Commenter_XY]

LoB, I would take it one step further. What you see in the BLS data are the survivors. Meaning, missing are the 'deaths of despair' in the <55 age group. That is a big number of young people who just 'checked out' of life (since 2000), cumulatively.

I don't really know who captures that data comprehensively, but I'd want to see the 'deaths of despair' rate in the <55 age group over the next 4 years...does it go up or down?

As for the minimum wage (OT), why not let the states handle it? That is where I net out. The Feds should not have a mandatory standard. The states can regulate it far better. It would be far fewer hands grabbing at the proverbial money jar.

[loki13]

Good question! Why not let the states handle the minimum wage?

Because it won't really matter. The federal minimum wage is a floor. Thirty-four states have minimum wages above it.
Eight states set it to the federal.
Five states don't bother to set it (and so default to the federal).
Three states* have a minimum wage below the federal, but it doesn't really matter because the the federal rate generally applies.

*IIRC, it's Oklahoma, Wyoming ... and either Georgia or Alabama. Or maybe it switches between them depending on who is in the SEC championship game.

That said, it isn't as simple as just removing it, since the baseline minimum wage set by the FLSA is also used for calculations required in other federal regulations.

[ThePublius]

So, let me understand this. You are in favor of illegal immigration because they will accept lower wages than people who are here legally. Is that so?

That sounds a lot like the argument in favor of slavery, which was that if we don't have slavery, who's going to pick the cotton?

[Malika la Maize]

MAGAns don’t get consent, example 112,314.

Are you for raising the minimum wage? Or do you argue that it will raise prices so we need to keep wages lower. Just like slavery!

[ThePublius]

I am not in favor of minimum wage, at all. Let the market determine what wages will be. But, at the same time, stop illegal immigration and deport illegals.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to rent control.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently Lucretia James also opposes rent control.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/above-law-landlord-letitia-james-caught-violating-new/

[David Nieporent]

The article, by a conspiracy loon on the blog of the dumbest man on the Internet, does not actually establish that she violated any laws.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re against minimum wage laws? You want lower paid workers to pick the cotton, just like slavery!

If markets should determine rent and wages why can’t they determine labor movement?

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you favor maximum wage laws?

[Armchair]

"If markets should determine rent and wages why can’t they determine labor movement?"

Labor movements (ie unions) are defined by anti-market, pro-monopoly forces. They seek to get "all the workers" together to bargain "collectively" or else they will all go on strike.

It would be like all the landlords getting together to "collectively" set rents at a pre-agreed upon price.

[shawn_dude]

Malika la Maize means "the movement of labor to where the work is" and not "unions."

[jb]

It would be like all the landlords getting together to "collectively" set rents at a pre-agreed upon price.

Not really. It would be like if all the landlords got together to collectively negotiate rents with all of the tenants, so you ended up with something like a standard price per square foot agreed on by both the coalition of landlords and the coalition of tenants. Unions don't just get to set wages unilaterally.

But more generally: it depends on how the union works. When you get to the point that unions are representing workers across multiple companies in a common negotiation, it's close to the dynamic described above. I don't think the analogy is as strong if it's the workers at one particular company negotiating with management at that same company.

But also: what shawn says.

[bernard11]

Let the market determine what wages will be.

Labor markets are often quite monopsonistic.

[Riva]

Mamdani says “hold my beer.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

“It is a vast domestic terror movement,” said Stephen Miller. “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” he added.

People often forget just how large the Klan was in the North in the 1920s, the marches through the streets of DC and the rest. Is it a fair analogy to compare the current radical left to the Klan a century ago?

In 1925 it was the death of Madge Oberholtzer. She had been kidnapped by the head of the Northern Klan, D. C. Stephenson, who proceeded to rape and bite her -- I'm glossing over the more sordid details here but infection of these bites killed her, that with the mercury chloride she'd taken a few days earlier in a suicide attempt.

Stephenson had dumped her with her parents to die, which she did -- after giving a statement. This shocks the nation and the Klan evaporates.

[Malika la Maize]

There’s one party that still fights like hell to memorialize and monumentalize the Klan.

[Frank Drackman]

You're correct for once, and even has their POTUS speak at a Grand Dragon's funeral.
That was Barry Hussein at Robert KKK Bird's for those with Sleepy Joe's Disease.

Frunk

[Malika la Maize]

Byrd, who recanted his involvement in the Klan, died 25 years ago. Here’s the current War Secretary: "That's right, Bragg is back!”

[Frank Drackman]

2010 was 25 years ago?? Must be "Queenie Math"

[Malika la Maize]

15, mea culpa. Point stands (but given Francis on periods don’t be surprised if he doesn’t get it).

[Frank Drackman]

Oh right, "Mea Culpa", why can't you just admit it's your fault?

[William of Brooklyn]

"The current Fort Bragg is named for World War II Army Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a hero of the Battle of the Bulge and a recipient of the Silver Star and Purple Heart. In February 2025, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the installation's name to be changed back from Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg to honor this specific soldier, following a previous renaming in 2023 to remove the original namesake, Confederate General Braxton Bragg."

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, that’s why he said Bragg was *back.*

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bragg was *back.*"

Did he say Braxton Bragg was *back.*? If not, he was saying the fort name was back, not ole Braxton

[Sarcastr0]

I very much hope you don't believe that eyewash.

[shawn_dude]

LOL!

Wink Wink!

[bernard11]

This new renaming is juvenile horseshit.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd prefer juvenile horseshit to the active efforts to degrade and then erase our history.

[not guilty]

How does it degrade and then erase our history to recognize that naming American military installations after those who took up arms against the United States? That was treason in service of human chattel slavery.

That made exactly as much sense as naming an American airport after Osama bin Laden.

[shawn_dude]

So you'd support naming a base after Fritz Julius Kuhn? US citizen. Very well known political advocate of his time. Started a massive organization and was highly active in spreading it across the country. (Kinda like Kirk and Turning Point USA including a lot of the same opinions.)

He played a notable role in our history and started a whole movement with national reach. You'd agree we should not degrade his accomplishments, yes? Where would you like to erect his statue?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you actually not know they're lying, or you just don't care that they're lying?

It's an important distinction.

[Krayt]

They looked into Byrd's soul and saw he had truly changed. I assure you, this had nothing to do with his utility as being one of the most powerful senators of all time.

[Malika la Maize]

Why would t it have something to do with his actions matching his words? You don’t think people can demonstrate change?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Byrd still routinely spoke of "niggers."
Today clips of that would be all over the internet -- but in the '90s & '00s, he got away with it.

[not guilty]

Senator Byrd, whose name Frank can't be bothered to spell correctly, was no Grand Dragon. He held the lower rank of Kleagle, and he repudiated the Klan before Barack Obama was a gleam in his parents' eyes.

I bring this up not to excuse anyone's despicable Ku Klux Klan affiliation, but rather to point out that Frank regards truth as such a precious commodity that he uses it sparingly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, there's one party that doesn't want the Klan and who they were allied with shoved down the memory hole. The other party would prefer that they just be forgotten.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, y’all just want everyone to know the evils of the Klan! What Hegseth meant was “Bragg is back, now no one will forget that awful traitor in the defense of slavery!” Stop beclowning yourself.

The Trump administration has ordered several National Park Service sites to take down materials related to slavery and Native Americans, including an 1863 photograph of a formerly enslaved man with scars on his back that became one of the most powerful images of the Civil War era.

The moves by the administration were outlined in internal emails reviewed by The New York Times and two people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

The directives stemmed from President Trump’s executive order in March that instructed the Park Service to remove or cover up content that “inappropriately disparage Americans,” part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to promote a more positive view of the nation’s history.…
At Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia, Trump officials have instructed park employees to take down a sign that criticizes the post-Civil War “Lost Cause” ideology, which romanticized the Confederacy and denied slavery’s central role in the conflict… In a social media post last month, Mr. Trump accused the Smithsonian of focusing too much on “how bad slavery was”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/climate/trump-park-service-slavery-photo-tribes.html

[Bob from Ohio]

"What Hegseth meant was “Bragg is back, now no one will forget that awful traitor in the defense of slavery!”"

Mindreading. Did he use the word Braxton at any time?

[Sarcastr0]

Quit pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.

I'm going to appeal to incredulity here - no one actually believes this is about anyone but honoring the Confederate General to own the libs.

That includes you, who are just trolling.

Truly, you have owned the libs by acting like a gullible fool. slavery.

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of vets were bothered by the name change. people who had served at Fort Bragg or Fort Benning or others and NEVER associated the name with old dead generals.

Restoring the last name only was intended to honor US Army servicemen, whether you believe or not.

[Life of Brian]

Quit pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.

This is just horrible projection.

The frothy left successfully pushed to rename Fort Bragg solely because of their wide-eyed conviction that the name of a military institution today could have no meaning independent from the four-corners worldview of its original eponym.

To all the normies, it was just the name of the fort they, their parents, and their grandparents had grown up with, and which the wide-eyed frothies arbitrarily took away because of their infection-by-syllables worldview.

So the normies changed it back. And they even picked a new completely un-icky eponym to try to keep the frothies as happy as they'll ever allow themselves to be.

Seems pretty uncomplicated.

[John 4]

“This is just horrible projection”

I think it’s more that he was giving you the benefit of the doubt (that you aren’t a complete retard). That seems to have been far too generous.

[Life of Brian]

Man, I just don't know what I'm going to do to patch up the shattered fragments of my self esteem now that one of the least substantive snarkballs in this forum has so disapprovingly weighed in.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This makes it clear that you're not unaware that the DoD's claim is a lie; indeed, you wholeheartedly approve of it.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not see any efforts by Democrats to elide the history of the Democratic Party and Jim Crow.

What is Brett even getting this from?

[Malika la Maize]

In fact, as noted above Trump is leaning in our cultural institutions because he thinks they focus on slavery, the Klan and Jim Crow too much.

No, it’s the memorials and monuments to Klansmen that they are excitedly fighting for.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, so why is there a "Senator Robert KKK Bird" Highway, Bridge, "Education Center", there's even a "Senator Robert KKK Bird Telescope"
A friggin Telescope,
let me know when they re-name those (maybe to honor Larry Bird, who last I checked, ruined more Black Guys lives than even the (DemoKKKratic) KKK

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Because he recanted and showed it with deeds. Weirdos like Francis can’t comprehend that people can change (or basic English) but most people can.

For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[106] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the NAACP's position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. Sixteen other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently".[107] Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".[108]

[Frank Drackman]

Larry Bird recanted?? That I'll have to see first.
OK, you saw your error (Illegal use of Indefinite Pronoun, 5 yard penalty, replay First Down!)
and Edited, you have 1 Edit remaining,
"Colored People"???
That wasn't what Grand Klaxon Bird called them, he called them "Niggers" he even went as far to say there were "White Niggers" and that he knew alot of them

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Larry Byrd was actually ahead of his time in DEI, he took it personally if a white guy was assigned to guard him.

[Frank Drackman]

Well played, Queenie, Well played, for a "Hick from French Lick", Larry could trash talk with the best of them.
My Favorite, was during the 1981 NBA Championship Parade in Boston, Larry saw someone holding a sign that said
"Moses Malone Eats Shit!" (Gotta love those classy Boston fans!)
and Larry yelled "Yes!!! Moses Malone does eat Shit!!!!!"
been trying to find a clip of it for years, but apparently it's lost to the Ether currently 44 Light-Years away (and since Faster-than-Light Travel is impossible, nobody will ever see it (Moses Malone is happy)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I actually find the story of Robert Byrd one of inspirational redemption.

But MAGA wants anything to cover from their blatant anti-blackness. (see, as you noted, their needless Smithsonian slavery whitewashing).

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, he joined the KKK when it was politically advantageous and quit the KKK when it was politically advantageous.
And your side can give lessons on "Anti-Blackness" starting with the murder of over 50,000,000 unborn ones since 1973.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

“quit the KKK when it was politically advantageous”

Nah. He could’ve just switched to be a Republican, they’d build a monument to him!

“the murder of over 50,000,000 unborn ones”

He’s going to start crying about the black baby holocaust now, some edgelord wannabe!

[Frank Drackman]

In West Virginny??
You really need to get out more Queenie (OK, maybe not to West Virginia)
WVA didn't turn "Reliably Repubiclown" until 2000 (AlGore could make me vote for the Ayatollah Khomeni)
I'll give the Grand Kleagle Kredit (see what I did there?)
He knew how to stay in Orifice
and you're right, he was a big supporter of BBK (Black Baby Killing) a Grand Klaxon for limiting the number of Blacks? Color me (see what I did there? "Color") not shocked
Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, his strong civil rights record is what endeared him to West Virginia voters.

Someone needs to get out more (and maybe take some remedial English or get help for derangement).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, his strong civil rights record is what endeared him to West Virginia voters. "

He does not become Majority Leader with "recanting".

[Frank Drackman]

Robert KKK Bird also voted against Thouroughly Bad Marshall, AND Clarence Thomas for seats on the Surpremes, also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
THAT's your "repented" Senator

[Dr. Ed 2]

The NAACP made the same choice the feminists did with Clinton -- ignore his personal life if he votes for the stuff you want.

[Malika la Maize]

Or, they recognized he seemed to have changed.

[Commenter_XY]

Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha = I do not see any efforts by Democrats to elide the history of the Democratic Party and Jim Crow.

[bernard11]

Maybe you could point to some, XY.

[David Nieporent]

Brett, you're usually just autistic and conspiracy theory infected, but here you're being totally fucking dishonest. Nobody wants the Klan and who they were allied with shoved down a memory hole. This is about honoring the Klan, not remembering them, and the only side that wants that is the GOP, because they know that the Klan is on their side, even if the party they represent changed.

[Riva]

What harm could a vile lie asserting that the republican party “fights like hell to memorialize and monumentalize the Klan” do? How could anyone ever object to repugnant lies and the demonization of political opponents? It can only foster unity and dialogue.

[Malika la Maize]

You know what doesn’t foster unity and dialogue? Fighting like hell to maintain and restore memorials and monuments to those who literally fought like hell in committing treason in the defense of race-based slavery.

https://apnews.com/article/confederate-memorial-arlington-cemetery-trump-10-million-5dd49c0cc16244e3e09a7a7f0008cbcc#

[Riva]

I was actually responding to your comment above. "There’s one party that still fights like hell to memorialize and monumentalize the Klan." One will search in vain for the word "Klan" in the above link you provided. Likely because the story has nothing to do with the Klan but a dispute over a monument in Arlington Cemetery honoring fallen soldiers. Anytime you're ready feel free to post an AP link that actually backs up your lie above.

[Malika la Maize]

Nothing to do with the Klan, just Confederates, which has no relation!

Bad programming!

But if it can’t draw inferences here’s something more direct:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/10/tennessee-republicans-rally-to-preserve-statue--holiday-for-kkk-founder/

[Riva]

I guess some might disagree with the intent to honor the memory of fallen soldiers by memorializing a confederate general. Although what's kind of conspicuous in its absence is any expressed intent by any republicans to honor the Klan. So not actually supportive of your original lie now is it Malika the whatever?

[Malika la Maize]

The guy they expressed intent to support memorializing just *happened* to be an unrepentant Klansman! Next Riva bot will suggest a monument to John Wilkes Booth, for his acting ability, of course!

Bad programming!

[Riva]

Anyone want to bet on when the troll will get bored with the “Klansman” insults and soon circle back to the Nazi and Hitler references ? I give it a week, maybe less.

[bernard11]

Although what's kind of conspicuous in its absence is any expressed intent by any republicans to honor the Klan.

What a bad argument. The Republicans are keen to honor the Confederates, who were traitors as well as fighting to maintain slavery. I'd call them worse than the Klan. But they supposedly shudder at the very thought of the Klan - "terrible people, nothing to do with us, etc."

Really, it's ridiculous.

[Riva]

No. The “bad” argument was the lie by Malika the whatever that the republican party “still fights like hell to memorialize and monumentalize the Klan.” The issue of what respect is or was due fallen confederate soldiers in the interest of national unity and simply honor and decency is a different subject on which reasonable people may disagree. Reasonable people exclude by definition lying trolls.

If you’re not a parrot troll, Bernard, address Malika the whatever’s lies instead of attacking me.

[David Nieporent]

Riva is correct here! What to do about fallen confederate soldiers is a different subject. A complete red herring in fact. Nobody is talking about the graves of confederate soldiers.¹ The issue is what to do about monuments to their leaders, honoring and commemorating the chief villains.
​
​
¹To be clear, the correct answer is that those soldiers had no honor or decency and deserve no respect at all. They were traitors in support of an evil cause, and the most charitable thing one can say about any of them is that they were too personally cowardly to oppose the confederacy.

[David Nieporent]

There is no daylight between the confederacy and the Klan. The latter was just an attempt to regain by terrorism what the former had lost on the battlefield.

[Kazinski]

The Klan was always a Democratic para military group.

80% of the Klan members who were elected to the Senate were Democrats.

[Malika la Maize]

And yet who is fighting to memorialize and monumentalize Klan and Confederate figures now?

[Riva]

No one, as my comments above exposing your sick little lie demonstrates. Oh I guess some anonymous loons might support that but the vast majority of anonymous loons these days are on the left, not the right.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump is a loon, I agree, but hardly anonymous or on the left, bot.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/05/trump-confederate-statue-albert-pike

[Riva]

That’s weird, not one word on any republicans fighting to memorialize the Klan. Almost like you just keep regurgitating the same lies with different links. I guess because there are no legitimate sources actually confirming your sick little lie. What to do? Try a sub Reddit, plenty of garbage there.

[shawn_dude]

And at the time the Democrats were the conservative party and fought against civil rights for black Americans. We all know that the Dems and Repubs experienced a polar flip around the 1960s with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which the Republicans were largely against. Southern conservatives, and the Klan with then, went to the Republican party where they reside today.

You know this history but make these claims in bad faith.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House with 289 votes.
153 Democrats and 136 Republicans voted yea, 91 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted nay.
Senate vote was 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans yea, 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans nay.
Not quite what you claim.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 1957 civil rights act had passed with,
House Republicans 167-19
House Democrats 118-107
Senate Republicans 43-0
Senate Democrats 29-18

The 1960 civil rights act had passed with,
House Republicans 132-15
House Democrats 179-93
Senate Republicans 29-0
Senate Democrats 42-18

Then we come to 1964,
House Republicans 136-35
House Democrats 153-91
Senate Republicans 27-6
Senate Democrats 46-21

The increased Republican resistance to the 1964 civil rights act, (It still had more Republican support than Democratic!) was due to it reaching private sector conduct which many Republicans thought was properly beyond the legal reach of the federal government.

[loki13]

This is mostly correct, but lacks a little nuance. I would just say that it isn't correct to say that the Dems were the "conservative party" back then (and therefore the GOP was the liberal party).

Instead, party affiliation was tied into issues that didn't fully map on to what we have today- and local and regional issues complicated it extensively.

The GOP was more about industry and commerce. The Dems were more about labor and progressive issues. But, for example, this wasn't a uniform concern. For example, the Dems were strong in the South for two reasons- the GOP (famously) was the party of Lincoln, and the Dems (through FDR) heavily invested in providing for infrastructure and advancement in the South as well as ... striking a bargain- more wages, more ability for unions, and ... ignoring and allowing racism.

Later, this would develop into two (true) stereotypes- the Rockefeller Republican (the moderate Yankee Republican who was pro-business and socially liberal) and the Southern Democrat (who was pro-worker, pro-pork, and pro-white).

Famously, starting with Nixon and then perfected by Reagan, the GOP flipped the Southern Democrat into GOP voters- mostly on account of the ... pro-white issue. This isn't a theory- it's fact (well-sourced). Meanwhile, as the GOP increasingly became polarized in that direction, you saw similar reactions in other places (California, for example, was once reliably GOP ... they elected Reagan!).

But yes, it is so friggin' tiring for people to keep spouting this nonsense. Either they are morons, or they are knowingly lying.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... the GOP flipped the Southern Democrat into GOP voters- mostly on account of the ... pro-white issue. This isn't a theory- it's fact (well-sourced)."
How about one of your sources?

[shawn_dude]

Thank you, Loki. I was trying to be brief. It's also true that the shift in that direction started back in the 30s (some history texts say late 20s) and accelerated into the 40s such that by the 60s it was largely already done. And the shift played out first in the Northern states before finally completing in the Southern states.

The bottom line, though, is this claim that Democrats are the racists is just made in bad faith and says more about the person making the claim than it does Democrats or Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Republican take on this is that Democrats, comfortable with racial discrimination, switched from discriminating against blacks, to discriminating against whites, (Racial quotas) while Republicans stuck with simply not discriminating.

And got outbid for the loyalty of blacks, while at least some white racists, admittedly, decided that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, and switched to the GOP as at least opposed to racial discrimination against whites.

[loki13]

If by "Republican take" on this, you mean "Brett's take on this that completely ignore all of history and elides the proven Southern Strategy of the GOP in order to make a ridiculous claim that still doesn't respond meaningfully to the BS that is being tossed around."

[Magister]

In light of the Republican take on who won the 2020 presidential election, the Republican take on anything may not have any relation to history or what's proven.

[bernard11]

The Republican take on this is that Democrats, comfortable with racial discrimination, switched from discriminating against blacks, to discriminating against whites, (Racial quotas) while Republicans stuck with simply not discriminating.

Which is horseshit. You want to break down those votes by South/rest of country? Here it is for the 1964 CRA: (from wiki. "Southern" refers to the eleven states of the Confederacy.)

In the House:

Southern Democrats: 8 Yea – 83 Nay
Southern Republicans: 0 Yea–11 Nay
Northern Democrats: 145 Yea - 8 Nay
Northern Republicans: 136 Yea–24 Nay

Senate

Southern Democrats: 1 Yea – 20 Nay
Southern Republicans: 0 Yea–1 Nay
Northern Democrats: 45 Yea - 1 Nay
Northern Republicans: 27 Yea–5 Nay

Given the current political makeup of the South, where do you think all those anti-CRA voters went?

[Kazinski]

That's not true Shawn, Wilson was the progressive president that segregated the federal civil service and rooted out Blacks from white collar jobs.

Orval Faubus was a fervent new dealer that was criticized for ties to communists, including his father, yet Eisenhower had to call out the National Guard to force integration on Little Rock High School over Faubus's vehement opposition.

Democrats in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's were not conservative but they certainly had a lot of racists, including the 23 that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (there were also 6 Republicans).

[Randal]

Uh... there's nothing klan-like happening on the left. Remember Durham's failure? Remember Musk's failure? How many deep state prosecutions has Bondi brought? You guys are looking for a boogeyman that doesn't exist.

TR acted alone, you're not going to find a Soros money trail or whatever you're fantasizing about. Stephen Miller is just trying to leverage CK's death to score some political points, obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

Your Anti-Semite Neglect Syndrome is showing.

[Michael P]

Sure, masked gangs of people show up to conduct "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests, attacking people and damaging property while shouting their slogans. Sure, they have regular meetings of core groups and the rabble show up in response to summons by that core group.

But they're not burning crosses specifically (... yet, except the ones at churches they target) and they don't have a formal membership registry. That totally means there is "nothing klan-like happening". (/s)

[Sarcastr0]

You just live in fear of stuff you make up, every day.

[Riva]

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1968155474328686909

[Sarcastr0]

"I just received this from a student at
@UNCWilmington
. This is what the memorial they painted for Charlie looks like now after deranged leftists vandalized it."

::pic of 2 different painted rocks in 2 different places::

Bot needs to put more cycles towards visual recognition. And link to people who aren't idiots/liars.

[Riva]

Again, impressively adult response. I can see the trolls here have had an epiphany of sorts. And of course, not saying the messages conveyed are in the images not equally touching memorials, but I hope this link below clears up your honest confusion:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/universitys-charlie-kirk-tribute-defaced-students-hurl-insults-his-supporters-lost-souls

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you shared a link that had pics of 2 different rocks.

It's not dishonest to point that out. It is pretty funny though!

Fell for it again relying on LibsofTikTok.
----
As to the story itself, vandalism is a crime so that's bad. But also, the KKK it is not.

[Riva]

"My dude"? Where did you pick that up little communist girl that never smiled? Just to be clear, and again, putting aside the equally heartwarming messages, are you expressing support for the conduct of the UNC students disrupting a memorial and defacing the rock? Because I can't seem to read anything that looks critical of this repugnant behavior.

[Sarcastr0]

My last line was pretty clearly not expressing support, bot who never reads to the end of a comment.

Yet again, your twitter link pretended 2 very differnt pics were the same. I think so it could shoehorn in BLM? I dunno, but it was super obvious.

And you super fell for it.

And that is quite funny.

[Malika la Maize]

It can’t respond, it doesn’t know what Sarc said. Just repeats its programmed message.

[Riva]

The rock was vandalized, little communist girl who never smiled. One of many repulsive and violent tantrums by the left. There are many similar incidents, not to mention the vile messaging from many leftists celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Aside from any potential criminal violations, do you condone the repugnant behavior of these UNC students?

[Sarcastr0]

If you can't read the response I already wrote, Riva, I'm not going to repeat myself to you.

You really don't seem to want to acknowledge that you linked to a post with 2 different rocks pretending they were the same, eh?

[Riva]

Yeah, that’s not evasive. But i guess I shouldn’t have expected honest engagement from a little communist girl that never smiles. The rock was vandalized, and just one of many repulsive incidents.

[Absaroka]

"2 different rocks pretending they were the same"

Sarc, I was only willing to spend 4 minutes googling, but I wouldn't bet serious money the two pics aren't just different sides of the same rock. My 4 minutes didn't find pics that are a close enough match to be sure - the angles were all a little to different to be sure, and with an irregular shape like that you'd need an exact angle to be sure - but some seemed pretty close.

Not saying they are the same, but wouldn't be giving odds they aren't either.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The trees and buildings are different, in addition to the rocks having different shapes. It goes well beyond an angle.

2. The picture from the Fox News link is of a different vandalism to the rock.

3. Libsoftiktok is not an honest source.

[Riva]

The rock wasn’t vandalized, little communist girl who never smiled? This wasn’t one of many repulsive and violent tantrums by the left disgracing themselves at Charlie Kirk memorials? Again, aside from any potential criminal violations, do you condone the repugnant behavior of these UNC students?

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0 refuses to acknowledge we could be looking at the same rock from different angles. Of course, when viewed from angle "B," the buildings wouldn't be the same in the background as when viewed from angle "A." The trees look like the same kind of trees tom me. And the blue paint on the edges of the rock in the second pic is the same color as the blue in the first pic.

But I guess if you're a hater you see things as Sarc does.

[Absaroka]

"the rocks having different shape"

Irregular objects look quite different from different sides. Here is the Matterhorn from the Italian side, and here is the more common view.

"trees and buildings are different"

If one view is from, say, the east, and the other is from the north, I think seeing different trees and buildings in the background would be rather the norm.

Again, maybe they are the same, maybe not. I did an image search for UNC Whatever spirit rock and looked at pics from several directions. None were a perfect match, but some were fairly close to the two views, so I'd be cautious.

[LexAquilia]

Same rock, different angles.

lmao

[Malika la Maize]

“Sure, masked gangs of people show up to conduct "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests, attacking people and damaging property while shouting their slogans. Sure, they have regular meetings of core groups and the rabble show up in response to summons by that core group.”

Another Jan. 6 discussion?

[Riva]

I guess you didn’t get the memo. Democrats have moved on from the Jan. 6 lies to the Epstein lies.

[Malika la Maize]

Is Trump going to pardon Epstein too?

[Riva]

There you go, now you’re back on the program. Remember, whatever happens, it’s all Epstein, all the time. At least until the public gets as tired of this bullshit as every other lying democrat distraction. I guess democrats could act responsibly and actually honestly address the issues, but that’s crazy talk.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, speaking of programming, you brought Epstein into this discussion...

[Riva]

You noticed that? Maybe you noticed the democrats’ latest obsession about inserting lying disinformation about Epstein at every opportunity. Hard to mock that without mentioning Epstein. Would it make you feel better if I used “JE” or “Jeffrey E”?

Or maybe I should just let parrot trolls write my comments and respond to them as well? It’ll add to the troll workload. Do you guys get overtime?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you want to continue to bring up Epstein at every opportunity, feel free.

It's just a little "hiccupy" to do so--and in the very next comment complain about "Democrats" doing the same thing you just did yourself.

[Swede425]

The Klan wears black now.
It's more slimming.
And their masks aren't quite as pointy.
But they still play with fire.

[Malika la Maize]

So you’re going to fight for a monument to them?

[Swede425]

There must be a gas leak where you're at.

[Malika la Maize]

Not since you stopped being the handyman.

[bernard11]

Anyone who can read Miller's remarks, and Vance's, which are worse, and not understand that this administration is borderline fascist is willfully blind.

Vance:

As Vance explained it, a violent political movement is “like a pyramid that stacks,” with a “foundation of donors and activists, journalists, now social media influencers, and of course politicians.” Not all these people would murder someone, he assured the audience. “But by celebrating that murder, apologizing for it, and emphasizing not Charlie’s innocence, but the fact that he said things they don’t like, many of these people are creating an environment where things like this are inevitably going to happen.”

So criticizing things Kirk said makes one a violent terrorist?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not exactly sure how noticing how the opposition works makes one borderline fascist.

[shawn_dude]

I agree... I think "borderline" is being too generous. But fascists gotta start somewhere and we have plenty of history that shows dehumanization and demonization of the opposition is early-days fascism. Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungary, Turkey--plenty more examples.

[Randal]

I'm not exactly sure how noticing how the opposition works makes one borderline fascist.

You're not willing to compromise on the Second Amendment even though it "creates an environment where things like this are inevitably going to happen" as Kirk himself pointed out.

But you're willing to compromise on the First Amendment? Then... you're a fascist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I personally wouldn't compromise on either, but I'm not VP.

But, again, I'm seeing evidence that Vance understands a particular dynamic on the left. Sure, a dynamic that involves speech, but understanding a dynamic involving speech is NOT the same thing as proposing to violate the right to that speech.

So, show him doing the latter, not the former, if you want to establish he's a fascist.

[bernard11]

I'm seeing evidence that Vance understands a particular dynamic on the left.

By a "particular dynamic' you mean a particular set of RW fantasies and conspiracy theories which you endorse. That Vance is as crazy as you are does not speak well of him.

[bernard11]

But lying about how the opposition works, claiming it's all supporters of violence, and then threatening them because of your lies, sure is.

More Vance:

Vance called out the “generous tax treatment” that George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation receive as he accused the groups of funding a “disgusting article” in the Nation magazine that he said was used to justify Kirk’s death. Neither group appears to have provided money to the Nation in the past five years.

Vice President JD Vance on Sept. 15 blamed ‘liberal billionaires’ for funding journalism critical of Charlie Kirk. (Video: Charlie Kirk Show)

The Ford Foundation provided a grant to the Nation of $100,000 in 2019 for an internship program but has not provided money since, according to online records. Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the Nation, said on X that the publication had never received funds from the Open Society Foundations. Vance’s office, asked about his accusation, provided a link to a report about the Nation by a conservative group that in turn cited a 2017 report about Open Society Foundations grants.

We hardly needed this to know Vance is liar, almost the equal of his boss, but it is one more example.

[Life of Brian]

So criticizing things Kirk said makes one a violent terrorist?

No, I believe we've been instructed that repeated, calculated, dehumanizing prods like that constitute stochastic terrorism.

If it's time to put that concept back on the shelf and go back to just holding people accountable for violent acts they directly incite, I'm very open to having that conversation. But as usual, it's not going to be unilateral disarmament.

[Randal]

Um, what are you talking about? The left has never proposed prosecuting "stochastic terrorism" in this country. Cancel culture maybe, but not prosecution.

Bondi, Trump, Vance, and Miller have been proposing prosecution. That's what makes them -- and you -- fascist. Cancel all you want, but prosecution is new.

[Life of Brian]

Cancel culture maybe, but not prosecution.

Bondi, Trump, Vance, and Miller have been proposing prosecution.

Feel free to cite to actual sources containing whatever actual language they've spoken that you feel says that. I'd be surprised if Vance in particular went there based on what I know he did say: "So, when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out and, hell, call their employer. We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility."

[Magister]

On a podcast hosted from his office,

Vance said the administration would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country”.

Stephen Miller also on that podcast:

“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, [Department of] Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks,” Miller said, adding that they would do this “in Charlie’s name”.

Conspicuously, it's not reported that Vance disputed that. I'm not sure what the Department of Justice would be doing; prosecuting but with due process is probably the least questionable thing it could do.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I quoted from the podcast in the post you responded to. The full transcript is here so you don't have to rely on the accuracy of others' characterizations/paraphrases/crop-quotes.

In any event, to get in the neighborhood of actually supporting Randal's apparent overstatement, now all you have to do is find some way to show that Vance's "work to dismantle the institutions" refers to prosecution rather than for "our country to be united in condemnation of the actions and the ideas that killed my friend" as he actually said immediately prior to that soundbite, and that Miller's "these networks" just refers to people dancing on Charlie Kirk's grave rather than "a vast domestic terror movement" including "the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence" as he actually said immediately prior to that soundbite.

[Magister]

You're disputing only Vance; Vance, who at least implicitly accepted Miller's broader statement? Quibble harder. It's not a better look that the administration will harass and intimidate its victims than actually take a criminal case to court.

[Life of Brian]

You're disputing only Vance

You quoted Vance and Miller; I explicitly addressed both quotes and why they don't satisfy Randal's proposition.

If you're interested in having a good-faith discussion, please address what I actually said. If not, please just move on.

[Magister]

You quibbled with Randal's statement only with respect to Vance. I demonstrated Miller's statement because Vance was hosting the podcast where he made that statement. You never have good faith discussions; you quibble and even when your entire argument is demolished you try to dismiss it as only a trivial gotcha. Not going to bother to look for a link to the Black Knight's "it's only a flesh wound!".

[Life of Brian]

OK, let me know if you change your mind.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're interested in having a good-faith discussion

Then no one should talk to you.

You've had a number of posters here take issue with your scope-changing, pedantry, and general inability to stick to a thesis other than shallow negation.

[Life of Brian]

My friend, anyone who would look to you for guidance on whether to talk to me is someone I don't need to be talking to anyway.

[Randal]

Your theory is that Vance and Miller are talking about totally different things?

Wow. Ok now do Bondi. This oughtta be good. I love watching you sanewash your leaders' fascist tendencies.

[Life of Brian]

As far as I can tell, Bondi wasn't on the podcast. What specifically did she say that you're all hot and bothered about?

[Randal]

Let's do Bondi and Trump in one go.

The exchange occurred after ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl asked the president at the White House, "What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies, say hate speech is free speech."

"She’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly," Trump replied, speaking over Karl as he asked if that would be appropriate. "You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they will come after ABC."

Since you're retarded, a reminder: Bondi is the AG. So when she says she's going to "target" and "go after" people, you have to assume she means criminal investigations, not just disapproving tweets.

[Life of Brian]

Good grief -- goalposts. Your genuine position is that this is the first time anyone has ever even suggested prosecuting hate crimes?

[Randal]

Hate speech not hate crimes oh my god.

[bernard11]

You think, "identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks," just means condemning the murder? Really.

And two other things.

What ideas "that killed my friend" is he condemning?

And where are these "networks?" Who is he talking about? The Ford Foundation, The Open Society Foundation and Soros, the Jews, as Kirk would have it (not all of course, but the Jews nonetheless)?

Before you start going after people tell us what they did wrong, other than disagree with MAGA, or say something unpleasant about Trump?

Yes. Vance is despicable.

[Life of Brian]

You think, "identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks," just means condemning the murder? Really.

Just the opposite, actually. Maybe read my post again.

What ideas "that killed my friend" is he condemning?

If he doesn't explain that in the transcript, you'd have to ask him. Why do the specific ideas that he'd love for the whole country to be united in condemning matter to the present discussion of whether he was calling for criminal prosecutions?

And where are these "networks?" Who is he talking about?

I don't believe he mentioned any specific ones -- as you know if you actually read the transcript, Miller was quickly articulating some general thoughts in the final 30 seconds of the podcast. In any event, once again, why do their specific names (if they even have formal names) matter to the present discussion?

Before you start going after people tell us what they did wrong, other than disagree with MAGA, or say something unpleasant about Trump?

Who's started going after people? You seem determined to over-read this through the lenses of whatever bloodbath media headlines you've consumed.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Where is Charlie Kirk's grave, by the way?

Does it even have a surface suitable for dancing?

[bernard11]

"our coversal untry to be united in condemnation of the actions and the ideas that killed my friend"

Actions, yes. Ideas, no.

What ideas killed Kirk, and why should they be condemned? That violence is acceptable political expression? Sure. But we have already seen largely universal condemnation there.

But that Kirk's political views misguided, not to say odious, no.

The right has been using the assassination to claim that any disagreement with those views, or criticism of Kirk' expression of them led to the shooting.

Stupid, dishonest bullshit.

[Life of Brian]

[moved]

[Commenter_XY]

The cite will never happen, LoB.

[Malika la Maize]

79 Year Old President Can’t Remember

The president then mentioned solving a war between “Azerbaijan and Albania” which was “going on for many, many years.” Trump continued, “I had the prime ministers and presidents in my office. They sat so far apart, one chair was there, one chair was there. I said, ‘Fellas, get together, come on.’”

Albania, a Balkan country some 1,430 miles from Azerbaijan, has never been at war with the country. Trump did, however, broker a peace deal between Azerbaijan and its neighbor Armenia in July, after hosting the president of Azerbaijan and the prime minister of Armenia at a peace summit at the White House, bringing an end to decades of fighting between the two countries.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-cant-remember-which-countrys-war-he-solved/

[hobie]

Nothing happens in Azerbaijan without Putin's say so. Perhaps Trump and Putin can share the Peace Prize. That would be hilarious.

[OpinionsVary]

It's Armenia that is aligned with Russia. Or rather was. It's been falling out of Russia's orbit for a while now, something only accelerated by Russia's inability to protect it's client state's interests with so much of its attention tied up in Ukraine.

Azerbaijan is aligned with Turkey and while they can get on with Russia, the Turkish alliance is very much meant to be a counter balance to Russian power.

[Armchair]

Typically Russia was supporting Armenia more heavily during the conflict....

[Randal]

Perhaps Trump and Putin can share the Peace Prize.

Good idea. You have my vote.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malka, you've never driven a school bus.
It's called the "children behave" approach -- you don't care what the issue is, you simply tell both sides to STOP IT.

[Don Nico]

Get of your hobby horse. You are a broken record with nothing to be gained.

[Michael P]

The first man arrested after Charlie Kirk's shooting was arrested for a good reason:

Police say that a Salt Lake City man — who was no stranger to the state's political scene — claimed responsibility moments after the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, in an attempt to "draw attention from the real shooter."

https://www.ksl.com/article/51373320/man-claimed-to-shoot-charlie-kirk-to-draw-attention-from-the-real-shooter-police-say

I have no idea why he agreed to let police look at his phone, much less why he would make the impromptu confession that he repeatedly made about his phone's contents. "Don't talk to police without your lawyer" is such common advice that I would expect a long-term gadfly to know what would happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sometime it's as simple as, "Yes, he was as stupid as he appears."

[Frank Drackman]

They had Briscoe and Green work him over

[Kazinski]

His statement to the police officer should tell you most of what you need to know: "I shot him, now shoot me".

Grok has his history:

"George Zinn is a 71-year-old Utah resident known locally as a politically active "gadfly" or perennial attendee at political events across the state, often described as conservative-leaning with libertarian tendencies. He has a history of minor legal troubles, including a 2013 arrest for a bomb threat at the Salt Lake City Marathon (shortly after the Boston Marathon bombing) and more recent misdemeanor charges, such as a May 2025 arrest in Ogden for "pedestrian in roadway" after refusing to move from traffic during a protest. Zinn has also been banned from contacting certain government officials and the LDS Church due to his disruptive behavior in political and religious circles."

[Mr. Bumble]

So he's a Democrat.
What would you expect?

[LexAquilia]

And his first reaction was to enable the killer to escape.

Even that wasn't premeditated, that's genuinely evil and vile.

[Nelson]

“ So he's a Democrat.”

“ described as conservative-leaning with libertarian tendencies”

So that’s the definition of a Democrat in your world? At least you’re honest about your hard right worldview. Brett Bellmore still claims he’s mainstream, like (according to him) Charlie Kirk.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's not the definition of a Democrat. That's how Democrats will typically describe anybody to the right of Lenin who undeniably did something bad.

Let's hear the evidence that he's conservative leaning with libertarian tendencies.

Here's an account from when it was thought he was innocently mistaken for the killer. He's not described as conservative, but instead as somebody who would frequently gate-crash conservative events. Maybe to protest them?

[Randal]

Maybe to protest them?

Wow, what a desperately sad man you are.

Often, [District Attorney] Gill said, Zinn was arrested on suspicion of trespassing. He said Zinn was politically conservative, leaning libertarian, and would “give me a hard time for being a Dem.” Zinn had a curiosity about politics and “almost every political event you can think of, there was always George somewhere in the background, listening.”

In a story that Salt Lake Tribune political columnist Paul Rolly retold in 2012, Zinn showed up at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans in 1988 without a place to stay — so T.H. Bell, a Utah Republican who had been Ronald Reagan’s education secretary, let him sleep in a cot in his hotel room.

Zinn tried a similar trick in Tampa in 2012, Rolly wrote at the time, hotel security forced Zinn to leave, even though the Utah delegation protested.

Yeah, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Education put him up at the Republican National Convention because he was there to protest.

It's sad to see you like this, Brett.

[Kazinski]

No its obvious he is an eccentric nut case attention whore.

Being under court orders banning him from contacting public officials and church leaders makes it pretty plain he isn't rational, it takes repeated non-rational harassment to get an order like that, especially for public officials who are expected to put up with normal complaints profanity picketing etc.

[bernard11]

No its obvious he is an eccentric nut case attention whore.

I'll go with that.

It doesn't make much sense to talk about the guy's politics, unless, like Bumble, you want to tar all Democrats with his behavior.

[hobie]

Top 20 Most Transgender Porn Obsessed States
Transgender Porn related Google Searches using the terms: “shemale”, “tranny”, “femboy”, and “ladyboy”
https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

1. Texas
2. Georgia
3. Kentucky
4. Missouri
5. Kansas
6. Virginia
7. North Carolina
8. Illinois
9. Mississippi
10. Tennessee
11. Ohio
12. Indiana
13. Arkansas
14. Iowa
15. Louisiana
16. Michigan
17. Oklahoma
18. Alabama
19. Florida
20. Pennsylvania

[Frank Drackman]

Almost all States 45/47 won (except for Illinois, "What's the matter with Kansas"??? should be "What the (Redacted) is wrong with Illinois??(Hint, it's Chicago)"
And as 45/47 famously said
"We won with the Porn Obsessed, we won with the Gay-Porn Obsessed, we won with the Transgender Porn Obsessed!
We love the Transgender Porn Obsessed!!!!!!
and I search alot about King Cobras, I'm fascinated with them, doesn't mean I'm going to get one (Hmmm, release a swarm of King Cobras during a joint Session of Congress.......
Nah, that would be a cruel thing to do to the Cobra's

Frank

[hobie]

I know. What's the deal with Illinois? In truth I do a lot of searching for 'talking crows'. Unlike cobras, I can train my crow to perch on my shoulder and speak.

I'm also planning on getting this shirt:
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/Sd11b059cba444137a14ea6eb78ac7defy.jpg_640x640q90.jpg

[loki13]

Let's see. SEC Football consists of teams in ...
1. Texas (Horns, Aggies)
2. Georgia (Dawgs)
3. Kin-Fu... Kentucky (Losers)
4. Misery (Uh... some team)
9. Mississippi (Cowbells, Ole Miss)
10. Tennessee (Vandy, Rocky Top)
13. Arkansas (Hogs)
15. Louisiana (Best Friggin' Tailgate)
17. Oklahoma (Sooners)
18. Alabama (Inbreds, Tide)
19. Florida (Gators)

Two notes- Apparently, there is a staggering correlation between SEC Football and a love of transgender porn. THE MORE YOU KNOW! Seriously, I'm not judging. People love SEC football, and the heart wants what it wants. But I'm guessing that using porn is something you do privately when you can't express your desire publicly.

Also? South Carolina is NOT on the list? Huh. I'd make a snarky comment, but ... I got nothing.

[bernard11]

May I say that, as a double alumnus, the name "Vandy" grates on me.

It's Vanderbilt, damn it!

[loki13]

....truly, that's a comment from a Vandy grad!

🙂

[Ridgeway]

Prolly still a chip on his shoulder because he couldn't get into East Tennessee State, and had to settle for the safety.

[bernard11]

Just demanding proper respect for my university.

No one calls Harvard, "Harvey"

[Frank Drackman]

Isn't it "The" Vanderbilt University??
and Vandy Foo-Bawl is like a Total Solar Eclipse, brief periods of wonderment followed by 50 years of boring nothingness.
I still love how Cam Newton (who led Auburn to the 2010 SEC & BCS National Championship, how many has Vandy won?)
calls it "The University of Auburn"

Frank

[bernard11]

No, Frank. It's just plain "Vanderbilt University."

It's true that Vanderbilt football is perhaps not on a par with that of its SEC counterparts (except this year it's not too bad (amazing what money can do) but still, the historical record is poor.

Still, some of us take a perverse pride in just how bad it is. My four years saw, I think, a total of six wins, though the basketball team was frequently top ten, and would have made the final four one year but for a rotten traveling call.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I once knew a guy who always referred to it (his alma mater) as "the big H".

[Brett Bellmore]

We always called mine "The Empty U".

[Martinned]

Howard?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How did you guess?!

(For better results, you may wish to use a different method next time.)

[Ridgeway]

But they call University of California at Berkeley, "Cal", and they call University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "Carolina", and they call Georgetown University , "G-Town".

Would you prefer it if they just referred to Vanderbilt as "13th Grade"?

[bernard11]

"They?"

[Malika la Maize]

Trump on Russia-Ukraine War

March 4, 2023. Speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day.”

Last Week: “I'm not happy about anything having to do with that whole situation. But hopefully it's going to come to an end."

[Frank Drackman]

You Fucked up, You Trusted Him!

[hobie]

"“I'm not happy about anything having to do with that whole situation."

Uh oh. I guess Ukraine is going the way of the Epstein files. Everyone just needs to stop talking about it. Which also means next week it will be another democrat hoax. How many dem hoaxes does that now make for 2025? [asking for a friend]

[loki13]

"Dem Hoax" is the officially approved term for "facts."

Get with the program.

[apedad]

"Dem Hoax" is the officially approved term for "facts that I don't like."

FTFY

[Sarcastr0]

Reading 'The Mercy of the Gods' the followup to the Expanse series by the same composite author.

I'm about 1/3 of the way through and...it's a lot more bleak! I'm not sure I'm a fan.
It reads quickly even so, so there is that.

[apedad]

Congressional Republicans target DC's speed camera system as 'revenue grab'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congressional-republicans-target-dc-s-speed-camera-system-as-revenue-grab/ar-AA1MGfNg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=68ca977eb4d64b1986ff3a23b6f39f09&ei=241

I've mentioned before that DC should cede most of the land back to Maryland and just have a small section around the White House, Congress, mall, monuments, etc.

We don't need Congress wasting time about speeding tickets.

[Malika la Maize]

Hey, Pirro has to get places!

[Krayt]

No joke. My state, like many, lets cities write speeding tickets on highways that pass through it. One state rep got tired of getting ticketed on an 800 foot speed trap across a corner of one particular city, as he blew through to the state capital, so he got a law passed denying cities to write tickets on chunks under 800 feet.

[John F. Carr]

Was that Ohio? I recall the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that cities have a constitutional right to run speed traps even if the state legislature disapproves.

Cities don't have a constitutional right to a particular speed limit on freewas. The right solution is to post the real speed limit on signs. The Ohio legislature could do that, but chooses not to.

[Bob from Ohio]

The small city [Linndale] that triggered that case In Ohio was next to Cleveland. An interstate ran through the city but no entrance ramps so the Linndale cops had to leave Linndale to get into the interstate.

Ohio has a Home Rule provision that the court said was being violated.

[LawTalkingGuy]

In 2012 legislature eventually dissolved the mayor’s court there which made highway traffic offenses less lucrative because they were handled by Parma Municipal Court instead. The Village had roughly 179 people at the with 4 full time cops and 10 part time cops. A budget of over a million dollars the vast majority of which was traffic or mayors courts fines. It still has six council members and a mayor and a police force for a village of 108 as of 2020.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enforcing an unposted speed limit? How does that get around due process?

[John F. Carr]

You are expected to read the statute books and know that Pennsylvania law prohibits driving faster than 55 miles per hour as a general rule.

What I was really getting at is the habit of posting pretend speed limits that cause trouble when overzealous cops take them seriously. The speed limit in my area is around 80. The Weld administration panicked when the chief traffic engineer pointed out that our highways were designed for 70 miles per hour. So the signs say 65 or lower.

If the signs in Linndale said 80 and they busted people for going 82, it wouldn't be a speed trap town.

There is a federal regulation requiring states to post statutory speed limits at the border. Drive into New York on a state-maintained highway and you see a sign "STATE SPEED LIMIT 55". These signs are not required by constitutional law. You have to know the law, the same way you know that carrying a gun while walking from the Pheasant Lane Mall building into the parking lot gets you a mandatory minimum 18 months in jail. (The parking lot is in Massachusetts. The mall is in tax-free New Hampshire.)

When driving do you have to signal a turn 200 feet in advance? Only when required to give notice to other traffic? The law varies and it's your job to know the law where you are.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You are expected to read the statute books..."
That should start with the governing officials and the police.

[hobie]

Dems steal the election | It was MAGA
Dems are pedos | It was MAGA
Dems do all the political violence | it was MAGA

So we know by now that when dems get accused of something, its really a MAGA confession.

With that in mind, I've been thinking about why of all songs does MAGA keep bizarrely pumping YMCA? An allegorical song about cruising for and picking up young boys. You hayseeds should have stuck with Lee Greenwood, but you just can't help yourselves from broadcasting your crimes

[Armchair]

New book recommendations:

1. The Will of the Many, James Islington.

A solid fantasy novel in a pseudo-roman type system. Islington does a few things well. A single viewpoint, all the way through. A novel "magic" system with the social implications. A "coming of age" storyline by a young man through the orphanage - adoption - academy storyline. Writing in the Sanderson-Jordan type epic fantasy, may be the best new Fantasy of the year.

2. Dungeon Crawler Carl.
-Incredibly amusing LitRPG series, most of these were listened to via audiobook and it was a riot. Just recently got the hard covers printed.

3. The Devils, Joe Abercrombie.
-Reasonable. Suicide Squad meets medieval fantasy.

[Frank Drackman]

Old Book Recommendations
1: "For Whom the Bell Tolls" if you have to ask....
2: "The Sound and the Fury" was supposed to read it in 1981, better late than never, and Steven King totally ripped it off with "Cujo"
3: "Gone with the Wind" Revisionists have it right up there with "Mein Kampf" and "Birth of a Nation", but as the Late/Great Larry "What's the Question!?!??! King would say "it's a real Page-Turner" (and at just over 1,000 pages, get the Carpal Tunnel Splint first)
read it in Saudi Arabia when there was no Internets, Newspapers, Radios, and my Black Market Paula Abdul Cassette wore out.
Oh yeah, Bonnie Blue dies, SPOILER ALERT!!!
too bad, it came out in 1936,

Frank

[Krayt]

Oh yeah, Bonnie Blue dies

Thanks! Now I has a sad.

[Frank Drackman]

and Rhett Butler doesn't give a (Redacted)

[bernard11]

Reportedly, after he got the Nobel, Faulkner stopped at a local gas station, where he was known, to fill up. The attendant said to him,

"Hey, Bill, when I heard you got that prize I went and read The Sound and the Fury. Let me ask you something."

"Sure"

"Was you drunk when you wrote that?"

"Part of the time."

[ducksalad]

Amazing coincidence, I was also supposed to read it in 1981. Lasted about 50 pages before deciding there were some things I wouldn't do for a grade. Still on the shelf, never opened again.

[Frank Drackman]

Even the Cliff's Notes were horrible

[SRG2]

the Sanderson-Jordan type epic fantasy,

Does that mean that there will be a huge series with each book taking up 1000 pages?

[Armchair]

He's only on book 1, but it does go 675 pages. Not quite as long as Eye of the World.

[SRG2]

I can't remember what the series was by Sanderson but on a recommendation I read the first book, and enjoyed it well enough, but then I found it was only the first in a planned series of 10 books and I thought shoyn genug.

The problem with all these writers - and yes, GRR Martin, you too - is that they're shitty historians. If we have the conceit that they're writing histories of real places, they are not good at working out what is historically significant and what should be left, either as a footnote or out.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump responded to an ABC reporter this week:

“You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they will come after ABC. ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech. Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they will have to go after you.”

He’s mixed up. It was Paramount that paid Trump 16 million dollars, ABC paid 15 million.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/paramount-trump-60-minutes-lawsuit-settlement/

[Frank Drackman]

So he was wrong by 6%, which ironically, is the amount of functional brain matter Sleepy Joe has.
I know I'm leaving myself open for a witty retort, like the Roosh-uns, I play 5 moves ahead, retort at your own risk!

Frenk

[Malika la Maize]

Of course an illiterate weirdo doesn’t care about accuracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Frink may be many things but he is not Illiterate.

[Frank Drackman]

I was being polite with the 6% for Sleepy Joe

[hobie]

I noted an Australian reporter asked a question that bent Trump out of shape, so he said he'd go after Australia next. We running out of allies real quick

[LawTalkingGuy]

There is a lot of liberal and left-wing conspiratorial thinking right now regarding Tyler Robinson's ideology and whether the FBI manufactured his texts.

With the caveat that anything can come out at trial and an indictment is just an accusation, it seems highly plausible that Robinson 1) wrote those texts 2) has liberal/center-left ideology.

The texts are almost certainly can be authenticated in numerous ways. High level politicians, even ones with law degrees may be able to lie with ease about the evidence.

But the prosecutors who draft indictments, knowing that really good defense lawyers are going to be scrutinizing the hell out of everything and would light them up in front of the Court and the jury if there was any hint they were fake, would not do that.

As for ideology, it appears he is of the center left based on what we know. I haven't seen anything to indicate he's far-left or a Marxist. And he also has some idiosyncratic or generational views (like all the internet meme and gaming references) that can overlay things with irony. But the base conclusion is he is that he had liberal or center-left views overall.

Unfortunately honesty about this, while the right thing to do for moral and pragmatic reasons, isn't going to make right-wingers stop lying and making up conspiracies about violence that can easily be traced to right-wing ideology. And conspiracies make it

Like if you're still claiming Vance Boetler is Tim Walz's best friend you are an idiot or a liar and probably both. Same with Daniel DePape being Paul Pelosi's gay lover. And lets not forget that we have at least 3 examples of racial or anti-immigrant mass-shootings based on Great-Replacement Theory. Something that is DEFINETELY not left-wing.

So if you are a conservative and you find yourself constantly correcting lies about Tyler Robinson's ideology...you might want to reflect on how you've reacted to things in the past.

[hobie]

Owing to my post above about MAGA's actual infatuation with tranny porn, it is highly likely that rightwing trannyism is a thing. It can explain how Robinson can be both MAGA and tranny at the same time

[LexAquilia]

> It can explain how Robinson can be both MAGA and tranny at the same time

lmao the cognitive dissonance is severe in this one

You'll be on here 5 years from insisting he was MAGA

[LexAquilia]

The texts look scripted, that's for sure. Probably worked out between the two Democrat trannies/furries ahead of time.

But who knows, the FBI is rotten and the good guys are still reforming it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I might argue about "center" left; I think you're confusing a shortage of evidence of extremism with evidence of moderation; We don't KNOW how far left he actually is, at this point.

But it's not worth arguing about in comparison to getting it admitted he's not right-wing. That PR line was just absurd.

Now we just need people to stop claiming that Kirk was some kind of ultra-right fanatic.

[Sarcastr0]

What people?

I saw some open hope he was a groyper, but no one was slam-dunking it.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/14/my-remarks-at-the-harvard-vigil/?comments=true#comment-11205203

The ones saying there's no hurry no need to go off uncritical and half-cocked were on the liberal side of the commentariat.

In contrast, there's a ton of people here (not you I don't think) with plenty of egg on their faces from accusing random people and insisting the shooter was a tranny and the like.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A ton? What people?

[LexAquilia]

He wasn't a tranny, just living with and dating one!

That's so different than being an actual tranny.

[Estragon]

It’s like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon!

[LexAquilia]

In your mind, is a tranny's boyfriend closer to 'tranny' or closer to 'maga'?

[Don Nico]

"I saw some open hope he was a groyper, but no one was slam-dunking it."
He even admits he is a dishonest person whose whole stick is to delegitimize everyone he disagrees with

[LawTalkingGuy]

He was extremely right-wing. His organization had to push out open anti-semites and white supremacists to maintain respectability. The real issue is the lie he was a moderate. Yeah I guess he’s a moderate if your comparison point is George Lincoln Rockwell (which I’ve seen right-wing accounts making). Doesn’t mean he deserved to be murdered, but it’s not who he was. And I don’t think he would agree he wasn’t extremely right-wing.

[Estragon]

Yeah that was kind of my point dumping all those quotes in the last open thread. Tearful paeans from Ezra Klein aside, the dude held some pretty outre views, ones that even the usual suspects here had to rush in to “contextualize.” My personal favorite was Bob accusing me of “dancing on [Kirk’s] grave” for providing verbatim quotes. But this is not a new phenomenon. See Trump trying to rebrand the Big Ugly Bill, for example. It may stun some of the ultras around here but “submit to your husband” and asserting certain passages from the Book of Leviticus are “God’s perfect law on sexual matters” are not actually popular or mainstream views.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this is what I'm talking about. The political center of this country isn't the middle of the Democratic party! It's at about the dividing line between Democratic and Republican, (Or else one or the other party would be a minor party!) and the political mainstream extends just as far to the right of that center as to the left.

Just as left-wing views conservatives REALLY don't like can none the less be in the political mainstream, right-wing views liberals REALLY don't like can be in the mainstream.

It's a wider mainstream than people like to admit.

[Estragon]

“It's a wider mainstream”

If you think that it’s a mainstream view in this country that certain passages from Leviticus are “God’s perfect law on sexual matters” I encourage you to get out more. Maybe talk to someone under 65 other than your own son.

[Randal]

I assume, Brett, that you agree Kirk was to your right.

That makes him pretty far right.

Maybe your definition of "mainstream" is like the middle 80%. I agree he was in the middle 80%. But I think most people's definition of "mainstream" is more like the middle 40%. He certainly was not in that band.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want to say that the definition of mainstream is 40%, then most of BOTH parties consist of 'extremists', and I think that's an unreasonable claim.

[Randal]

Mainstream and extremist aren't the only options.

[ducksalad]

Here are the official definitions:

Extreme right 10%

Mainstream 80%
a. Right leaning 20%
b. Centrist 40%
c. Left leaning 20%

Extreme left 10%

Feel free to link to this comment if you need to cite an authority in the future.

[Randal]

I mean... in this world where you can be both ultra right-wing and mainstream, I suppose Kirk was mainstream.

Which makes "mainstream" pretty useless. I prefer something more like:

Right-wing extremists 10%
Ultra right 10%
Hard right 10%
Mainstream 40%
a. Center right 10%
b. Centrist 20%
c: Center left 10%
Hard left 10%
Ultra left 10%
Left-wing extremists 10%

[ducksalad]

Wait, you're saying that 60% of the population is extremists? That claim seems rather.... extreme.

[Don Nico]

I have never read anything that Kirk wrote or heard anything that Kirk said, but if find it discouraging for US democracy that you and so many others feel compelled to delegitimize those with whom you disagree. That impulse spells the end of democracy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm sorry, what? You have never read or heard anything Kirk said?

Even after his death?

[Nelson]

“ I might argue about "center" left”

You think Charlie Kirk was mainstream, so your view on what is center is complete lunacy.

[Nelson]

“ stop claiming that Kirk was some kind of ultra-right fanatic.”

Sure, the guy who calls trans people trannys and freaks, thought women should submit to their husbands because he is the man, claimed (erroneously) that the Bible called for gays to be stoned to death and called it God’s perfect law on sexual matters, called for trans people to be treated like they were in the 50s and 60s, said the US government should be Christian, thought DEI meant that minorities weren’t qualified for their jobs, and backed the most extreme version of immigration (religious and racial preferences preferred) wasn’t an ultra-right fanatic.

He was a hatemonger, a bigot, a homophobe, a theocrat, and a misogynist. He was the definition of an ultra-right fanatic.

The fact that he would engage in public debates against his detractors doesn’t make him moderate, it just shows his confidence in his intelligence, speaking prowess, and preparation (all of which were superlative).

[Riva]

Why are there so many anonymous gutless sludges out there eager to impugn Charlie Kirks character after his death?

[shawn_dude]

Kirk's positions are pretty much mainstream Republican these days based on GOP politicians' own speeches. I'm not a political scientist (IANAPS?) but these opinions of Kirk may not be "center" but they've become the norm.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If "mainstream Republican" is correct, the party is rather troubling.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/148404010

[shawn_dude]

My belief is that these views aren't mainstream Republican but just mainstream for their politicians. Or, maybe I should say it is "my hope." But I also cannot believe the average German before WW2 was gung-ho for extermination camps yet they voted for Hitler and supported him to the point he was able to abolish their democracy and go on his crusade.

That doesn't comfort me.

[Michael P]

Your view is the kind of thinking that got Charlie Kirk killed. Are you proud?

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on adding a new way to be a shitheel to your arsenal. Empty accusations of murder by proxy are sure to make your posting even worse.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

New MAGA slogan: "Truth Hurts"?

[Jmaie]

"called for trans people to be treated like they were in the 50s and 60s,"

In the 50's and 60's, what we refer to today as trans people were just thought of as cross dressers, and were mostly ignored as mere oddballs. I'm sure there were occasional incidents of discrimination (or worse), but most people simply didn't care.

It is only when trans folks started demanding that their personal feelings should be catered to by wider society, that troubles arose...

Feel free to castigate me for uttering such a hatemongering bigoted homophobic misogynistic thought...

Cheers.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What is an accurate description of Charlie Kirk's views on trans people, then?

[Brett Bellmore]

An accurate description would be that trans people are sadly deluded, and that they and we would be better off if such delusions were not accommodated.

"Cis is a slur. 'Sex assigned at birth' is a logical fallacy. Gender Affirming Care is child mutilation. Minor Attracted Persons are pedophiles. Trans is a mental delusion. Reclaim the language they stole from us."

That brief quote really sums it up, I think.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I wasn't able to find any evidence that Kirk specifically used the term "tranny" in public, but he did say this on his show a few years ago:

"I blame the decline of American men. This never should've been -- someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s..."

Apparently, this was a reference to the way doctors reportedly treated "transwomen" in the 1950s: electroshock and lobotomy.

I assume that is what Nelson was referring to when he mentioned Kirk allegedly "[calling] for trans people to be treated like they were in the 50s and 60s", and there's video evidence supporting this.

So let's just add it to your otherwise impressive list (nearly all of which I happen to agree with) of Charlie Kirk's views on transism. In other words, perfectly reasonable and logical--with a dash of horrific medical torture thrown in for the lulz.

Yep, that's our Charlie!

[Magister]

need people to stop claiming that Kirk was some kind of ultra-right fanatic.

Some people consider him a hero but I'm put off by the racist epithets, sexual assault, disrespect for indigenous religions, attempting to overthrow government, and a lot more. And he even faked his own death.

[John F. Carr]

"really good defense lawyers"

How much is his legal defense fund going to raise? There must be a lot of deep pockets who would like to see him walk. On the other hand, even a bottomless pit of money would have a hard time defending this case. Maybe a good lawyer avoids the fiction of a sentence of death.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean even if he gets appointed counsel he’ll get people who are very experienced and good capital defense in Utah. Which is actually what he needs. I would be surprised if the judge appoints an idiot that could get it overturned on appeal due to ineffectiveness. This isn’t Louisiana or Mississippi. I would hope he doesn’t get money and hire some idiot grifter.

I believe Kyle Rittenhouse made that mistake initially!

[Dr. Ed 2]

If LTG is going to be rational, I will be as well.

LTG, how many criminal defendants have you defended?

Ever seen a squeaky-clean "pride of his family" kid with a 4.0 high school GPA and 99th percentile ACT score and a full-boat academic scholarship fall as far as this kid did without something happening???

Respectfully, it isn't politics as much as indoctrination. The question is what happened that one semester at USU?

BTW -- it was his grandfather's gun, as I suspected it was -- quite possibly a WWII trophy brought home.

[Josh R]

From what I can tell from the texts, Robinson was angry at Kirk for being anti-trans, his views being driven by his romantic relationship with his roommate. At least as of now, that's the extent of his left-wing ideology (assuming supporting trans rights is a left-wing ideology).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're assuming quite a lot.

I've always marveled at how well transism aligns with Trumpism, at least in the "denial of reality in service of belief" area. Trans people really, really believe they are a different gender, so they seek (and sometimes demand) that everyone else indulge their irrational beliefs--even when those beliefs contradict reality. Trumpers are similar in this respect.

Tyler Robinson was apparently gay, which could be considered a "leftist" indicator, but we are also assured that being gay is not a bar to full-flame MAGA subservience (just ask Scott Bessent).

TR's alleged email/chat confession simply noted that he'd "had enough of his [Charlie Kirk's] hatred", as if that was sufficient justification for murdering someone (TR did not cite Kirk's hatred of trans people, however--you've just assumed that part). But various right wing figures routinely insist that leftists and free thinkers are "full of hate", so that cannot by itself be an indicator of left wing ideology.

Of course, it hardly matters if someone was "on the right" or "on the left" if they act outside of the norms of their particular group--and political assassination is (so far) still well outside the norms of any US political orientation. That's probably changing.

After all, "they're not here to hurt me!"

[SykesFive]

I think the most obvious solution to the Robinson "puzzle" is that he's not a political ideologue but rather someone who reacted viscerally to things Kirk had said.

I think it's pretty clear from what we know so far that Robinson grew up in a pretty standard conservative Utah-but-not-SLC LDS milieu with guns and clear gender roles. Also, a lot of his family members found much they liked about Trump and the MAGA movement. But he did not. He went to college for a semester, dropped out, and went to grade school. But that was not the most important thing about him.

He was queer. I don't want to come up with a more definitive term for his sexual identity than that, but he did not fit in with his family and church. And he got into a relationship with a person who was transitioning.

On the other hand, he was still a guy who grew up with the basic idea that men protect the people they love. I think that's the decisive combination.

A big part of Kirk's deal is that he says a bunch of stuff about who should and should not have basic rights, be allowed to continue living, etc., but he does it in a somewhat polite tone while wearing a necktie. So it's considered debate. And part of debate is that you don't take it completely seriously. You certainly don't take it personally! The other guy is just saying that. It's not actually going to happen, or if it does it's not the debater's fault. He makes your argument, you make your argument, and everybody shakes hands and gets on with their lives.

But back to Robinson. It was not just debate to him. Maybe he didn't get that memo about how you can't take personally what guys in neckties say. It was an lethal threat against the person he loved and for that matter on him. And what do you do about that kind of threat. Well, most of us just vote or doomscroll or post anonymous comments, but Robinson turned out to be the kind of guy who takes decisive action.

An observation I've heard many times in my life is "an armed society is a polite society." The obvious meaning of that is that if you cross some lines in an armed society, you will be killed, yet few of us really confront that. Where are those lines? Robinson's line was one Kirk had crossed.

I will say this: the deal we have struck in our society is that if someone wants to kill you badly enough they will probably succeed.

So, sure, I guess if you list Robinson's political views they'll probably be somewhere on the left. On the other hand, his mode of action was not, if you see at as "man uses lethal force to eliminate threat to loved ones." And I don't think we're going to find some kind of deep political indoctrination but rather more of a "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." I think that is also the case with some of the other recent "political killers" like Mangione.

[Jmaie]

"The obvious meaning of that is that if you cross some lines in an armed society, you will be killed,'

Sort of...Heinlein meant more that people who think they might get shot will tend to be more circumspect in their dealings with strangers. You *could* be killed.

A subtle difference but an important one.

[SykesFive]

If there is a material difference between what we are saying, then I concede to your phrasing.

[Commenter_XY]

After a properly constituted and executed trial by a jury of his peers, the SOB Robinson is going to be just as dead whether by gas, needle or firing squad (my personal preference here).

[Frank Drackman]

Thank Jehovah for the tenuous nature of Gay Relationships (Not that I have any experience with them, as far as anyone can prove)
How long did it take for the "Boyfriend" (or should it be "Girlfriend"?? "They-friend"?? "It-friend??" To give poor Tyler up??
Of course now Tyler will have the chance to mingle with a whole new population of Guys, and perhaps "Transition" himself.

Frank

[Krayt]

How long did it take for the "Boyfriend"...To give poor Tyler up??

From the texts, they obvs loved each other.

I remind folks that, and this is a spoiler for the last three seasons of Dexter, not including the resurrections, they made Deb fall in love with him, as extra reason to not turn him in once she found out.

This was unnecessary and dumb, IMO, but it worked. In a Hollywood story.

The reality, someone did the right thing.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, his mom gave him up, but Francis doesn’t draw anything from that since Francis’ mom had such a history of giving him (among other things) up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Of course now Tyler will have the chance to mingle with a whole new population of Guys, and perhaps "Transition" himself."

Actually, no.
He'll be on death row in special population.

Law enforcement is not going to allow another Jack Rudy.

[Josh R]

Ruby. Rudy is my bridge partner.

[Frank Drackman]

"Jack Rudy"??
I'm supposed to be the Norm Crosby on this blog.

[Estragon]

Anyone live in FL-21? Your congressman is trying to put this into law:

Authorizes the State Department to revoke passports to any individual who been charged, convicted, or determined to have knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

That’s talking about US citizens, btw.

[Krayt]

Severed from boots on the ground politics, it doesn't seem completely ubreasonable, though I am concerned about cavalierly stripping rights without at least proper conviction.

Anyway, we've already seen the gaming of declaring what's a terrorist organization. And much deeper, more severe powers.

There's a law that lets the President declare an entire nation's citizenry as combatants. It's been used three times.

1. George Washington against the British
2. Against the Germans in WWII (and not even the Japanese!)
3. Trump and Venezuela.

Yeah, no specious behaviors there.

Congress will tighten all this stuff up, after they are not running scared, which is to say, he's out of office, or pushing up the daisies, as I don't think his mouth will close when he gains the Elder Statesman completion badge*.

* This was already accomplished when he first lost, but the opposition bore down on him with nigh infinite initiatives to git 'im anyway, through some bizarre thought of realizing if they simply took their footballs and went home after he lost, it would expose it was just political motivations all along, and not actually concern for rule of law. Shocker!

Your high-Q rationalizers pulled this all down on yourselves, and us. Thanks, power mongers! I know your bank accounts fattened over COVID because one of them, a poster here, bragged about its super-inflationary bulging.

[Estragon]

This is all over the place, but no, I don’t view stripping US passports from citizens as “[not] completely ubreasonable”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm.... The IRS is already doing it for unpaid taxes.

Although SCOTUS recognizes a "right to travel" so if you haven't been CONVICTED of something, the question is will it stand up in court?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not completely unreasonable has to be assessed in terms of circumstances. For a jay walking charge it would be insane. For a flight risk for a serious crime, suspending somebody's passport is just common sense.

[Nelson]

Losing your passport if you are charged with (but not convicted of) providing “other material support” to a terrorist organization. No, that isn’t so broad that anyone could lose their passport for almost anything. (Sarcasm)

These days everyday criminal enterprises are being called terrorists. I’m sure the next step is people daring to organize protests.

[shawn_dude]

Deleted. See ducksalad's comment below.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is the government can revoke passports (or refuse to issue them) for national security reasons. Judicial review is available. This bill would slightly expand existing policy.

[ducksalad]

It appears Congressman Mast accepted an amendment to delete the worst part of it, which would have allowed Rubio (and thus Trump) to take any citizen's passport merely by uttering the word "determined".

At least now there have to be actual criminal charges. They can still charge anyone, of course, but once the charges get tossed for having no supporting evidence presumably one could get the passport back.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Presumably", but is that (getting the passport back) part of the law? Charges which have been dropped after a passport has been revoked would not justify revocation after that point, but if the law does not have a mechanism for restoration, the person would have to re-apply using the normal process.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, should have said "get back ability to have a passport". I assume one would have to apply for new one since the old passport number would have been invalidated. Is there even a mechanism to temporarily invalidate a passport?

[Absaroka]

IIRC I have seen news articles about bail saying "the defendant was ordered to surrender his passport", which I took to mean physically handing it over to court, which would hand it back when the dust settled. But I could be totes out to lunch.

[Estragon]

Israeli PM says that the country will need to become a “super Sparta” and will need to develop an economy with “autarkic characteristics.”

I will let the Econ eagles around here comment on the feasibility of that.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-admits-israel-is-economically-isolated-will-need-to-become-self-reliant/

[Krayt]

Well, there are western factions that want to cut them off as arm twisting, so is it surprising?

[Estragon]

Perhaps unsurprising. But also feasible? Not sure.

Anyway, I thought the reference to Sparta was interesting:

“…even if the Jews were to win the war, its end would find the unique possibilities and the unique achievements of Zionism in Palestine destroyed. The land that would come into being would be something quite other than the dream of world Jewry, Zionist and non-Zionist. The “victorious” Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever-threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defense to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities. The growth of a Jewish culture would cease to be the concern of the whole people; social experiments would have to be discarded as impractical luxuries; political thought would center around military strategy; economic development would be determined exclusively by the needs of war. And all this would be the fate of a nation that—no matter how many immigrants it could still absorb and how far it extended its boundaries (the whole of Palestine and Transjordan is the insane Revisionist demand)— would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered by hostile neighbors.

Under such circumstances (as Ernst Simon has pointed out) the Palestinian Jews would degenerate into one of those small warrior tribes about whose possibilities and importance history has amply informed us since the days of Sparta. Their relations with world Jewry would become problematical, since their defense interests might clash at any moment with those of other countries where large numbers of Jews lived. Palestine Jewry would eventually separate itself from the larger body of world Jewry and in its isolation develop into an entirely new people. Thus it becomes plain that at this moment and under present circumstances a Jewish state can only be erected at the price of the Jewish homeland.”

That was written by Hannah Arendt in 1948.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And yet the Palestinian Jews have had major advances in pharma and biotech and ....

Three countries are known for drugs: Switzerland, USA, and Israel.

[Estragon]

“The growth of a Jewish culture would cease to be the concern of the whole people; social experiments would have to be discarded as impractical luxuries;”

“Israel’s culture minister, Miki Zohar, has announced that funding for the Ophirs, the country’s national film awards, would be cancelled after The Sea, a film about a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, won the best feature film prize.”

Eerily prescient.

[Keldonric]

It sounds more like strategic self-sufficiency. I would not have mentioned autarky had I been him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you look at where Israel is going with drugs and biotech, it could well simply sell access to that and buy what it needs with cash.

Heck, it could go to medical tourism -- if you've got the money and will die unless you receive [something] only available in Israel, you're gonna go...

[Frank Drackman]

Israel has a great Medical system, just hard to get used to Surgeons cutting from right to left.

[SykesFive]

Sparta? What ever happened to those guys?

[Commenter_XY]

Israel will win the war, then worry about becoming Sparta-like.

And they will win the war; hamas will be obliterated, as I told you they would.

[Estragon]

Finally, at least one country is getting their act together and arresting some of the people associated with the Epstein affair.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n455mj08o

[Mr. Bumble]

Finally being the operative word?

[Estragon]

I was assured Epstein was “over” weeks ago!

[Mr. Bumble]

Literally he was "over" six years ago when he didn't hang himself.
Why didn't the Biden DOJ go after anyone?

[Estragon]

Who knows? Maybe they were uncomfortable with the idea of trading leniency for dirt on political opponents? Todd Blanche doesn’t have that problem.

“It’s an impossible question to answer. I met with her for two days. To determine whether a witness is credible takes weeks and weeks and weeks. I asked her questions that I believed all of us wanted answered. And she answered them. She answered them, I didn’t — the point of the interview was not for me to pressure test every single answer she gave. Of course not.”

So let me get this straight: the deputy attorney general has an unsworn “proffer” with Maxwell without any of the attorneys who worked on the case (he fired one of them. Well, actually, Laura Loomer fired one of them). And then without making any attempt to assess credibility, moves her to club fed? This is awfully solicitous treatment of a convicted sex trafficker, no?

[loki13]

Oh, come on! You are, if anything, being too credulous!

Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years (230 months) in prison. As the USA stated at the time, "Today’s sentence holds Ghislaine Maxwell accountable for perpetrating heinous crimes against children. This sentence sends a strong message that no one is above the law and it is never too late for justice. We again express our gratitude to Epstein and Maxwell’s victims for their courage in coming forward, in testifying at trial, and in sharing their stories as part of today’s sentencing.”

Again, from at least 1994 to at least 2004 (as proven at trial), Maxwell assisted, facilitated, and participated in Expstein's abuse of minor girls as young as 14. She enticed and groomed them for Epstein and encouraged them to be abused by Epstein by discussing sex with them and undressing herself in front of them and encouraging the victims to "massage" Epstein. She was present for some encounters between the victims and Epstein (including the sexual acts) and DIRECTLY participated in the abuse (I will leave the details out, but I mean DIRECTLY).

Maxwell also directly paid victims and paid recruiting fees to victims to recruit more victims to be abused.

She was a LOT MORE than just a convicted sex trafficker. She was a knowing, willing, and direct participant with Epstein and was convicted of the same.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree about Maxwell. I also think she might have been covered by the sweetheart deal Acosta gave to Epstein.

[loki13]

Next, let's talk about Todd Blanche. Blanch wasn't just the #2 at the DOJ.

Blanche was Trump's personal attorney who Trump elevated to the #2 position.

Then, when the Epstein mess was blowing up, Blanche (Trump's personal attorney who was now #2 in the DOJ) was sent to talk to Maxwell.

Except ... Blanche had no previous involvement with the Maxwell case. And (unlike, um, EVER) the conversation was not recorded. For reasons? And the result of the conversation was not anything that helped the DOJ or the government, but ... resulted in Maxwell ... who is serving a VERY DESERVED 20 year sentence ... getting transferred to the bestest, nicest "summer camp" ... sorry, "prison" possible. Oh, and then Trump saying he couldn't rule out a pardon.

Is it corruption if you are doing it right in front of everyone? I don't know. You tell me. It's the world we live in now.

This is literally, "L'etat, c'est moi." And for whatever reason, there is a significant portion of the population that seems fine with it.

[Commenter_XY]

Maxwell is still in prison (rightly so), and Blanche released the complete transcripts of the discussions they had.

I want it all released, and all predators publicly identified.

[David Nieporent]

and all predators publicly identified.

Jeffrey Epstein.
Ghislaine Maxwell.

Done.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Name one other convicted sex trafficker who didn't also rape.

She is unique and hence should have her own set of protocols.

[Estragon]

Where in the Bureau of Prisons guidelines for someone convicted of her crimes do you find those protocols?

[Estragon]

“Didn’t rape”? You mean didn’t forcibly penetrate? Can you clarify?

“MAXWELL was then present for certain sexual encounters between minor victims and Epstein, such as interactions where a minor victim was undressed, and ultimately was present for sex acts perpetrated by Epstein on minor victims. That abuse included sexualized massages during which a minor victim was fully or partially nude, as well as group sexualized massages of Epstein involving a minor victim where MAXWELL was present. In some instances, MAXWELL participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims.”

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse

You are minimizing the conduct of a sex abuser. I know you are incapable of shame but this is pretty astonishing.

[loki13]

IIRC (and I don't want to look it up again) the evidence at the trial was that Maxwell, inter alia, introduced a sexual object into the body of the victims during the "sessions" with Epstein.

But I'm not sure why you're bothering to try discussing this with that commenter, who ... let's say has a long history of prevarication as well as ... interesting views about women in general and appropriate conduct re: same.

All of which misses the point- which is why Maxwell should be moved to summer camp. Is this where Trumpists like Dr. Ed are at?

"Hi, I'm Dr. Ed, and in 1960, what Maxwell did in Maine wasn't even considered rape unless it happened with a Moose and was done by a Yankees fan. I know, because I was there, and so were Ed Muskie, Ted Kennedy, and 28 university students who were all members of Hamas."

[Estragon]

“Is this where Trumpists like Dr. Ed are at?”

Uh, very possibly.

As I have stated in the past, one of the reasons I continue to spend time around here is that the seemingly outre commenters actually have predictive value as to where MAGA, writ large, is heading. So I expect to see more of this as Epstein continues to bubble and churn.

[Estragon]

A summer camp, it should be emphasized, that is about 3 miles from a school. And about 10-15 miles from Texas A&M.

[Bob from Ohio]

"summer camp"

A federal minimal security prison.

[Estragon]

“minimal”

Yes

[jb]

I thought it was because the Biden administration was trying to cover up for high-profile Democrats?

[Bored Lawyer]

Republican Brad Raffensperger To Run For Georgia Governor After Defying Trump Over 2020 Election

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/2451048/republican-brad-raffensperger-to-run-for-georgia-governor-after-defying-trump-over-2020-election.html

[Nelson]

I hope he wins the primary. He has been an unwavering figure of honesty, even in the face of Trump’s bullying and lies. I have no idea where he stands on the various issues that I think are important (and I don’t live in Georgia anyway), so I have no idea if he would bring good policies to the governor’s mansion or not. But he is undoubtedly a man of high integrity.

[John F. Carr]

I have found it interesting that doing your job in a way that would be unremarkable a decade ago is now heroic.

[ducksalad]

What's even more interesting is that despite the extreme grade inflation, fewer and fewer politicians make an A.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not too fond of him, which doesn't mean he isn't an upright guy. But when Trump asked for access to voting records in one county, he gave him access to voting records in a different county, and that was no accident. He was absolutely being uncooperative, and deliberately so.

I'd interpret that differently if he'd given him access to no records, but giving him access to the wrong county was just an upraised finger.

[Krayt]

Donald Trump’s call to help overturn the state’s 2020 election results

Reading between the lines is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. May I remind everybody the 2000 elections became a ridiculous facecious-fest of parties trying to overturn (or preserve) while spouting asinine profundities, paeans to democracy, and, we swear, that's it!

These and other methods you facete are great in the true service of Democracy, when looking for a few thousand more votes. You care about Democracy. Launch all talking heads!

Here are approved tricks that work! Re-count districts heavily red, or blue. It's known there are always more votes, and so your column gets a bigger boost from it.

Try to re-declare new counting rules, as the One True Awesome-o counting rules, after the election, which makes your guy win. We are interested in Democracy, and, we swear, that's it.

There should be a Whiz list, no, not Wizards. A list of people to Whizz on their graves after they die.

[loki13]

....I love the fact that we have added "But 2000!" to the vocabulary.

Yes, I remember 2000. I remember that in 2000, we had Bill Clinton conspiring in the White House to use the military and the DOJ to steal the election. That their were surreptitious phone calls and demands to the states to get votes to be switched or found after the election. That we had the Democrats threatening violence, and a violent insurrection at the Capitol to prevent a peaceful transition of power. That Al Gore, who won the popular vote, spent the next four years constantly on all media platforms talking about how the election was stolen, the votes were all fixed and rigged, and attacking the very foundation of trust that we had in our electoral systems.

Oh, wait. None of that happened? What really happened is that there was a contested result ... because the race was too close to call (and was incorrectly called), and the popular vote winner didn't "win" the EC, and it all came down to a dispute over the correct counting of votes in a single state- and this played out through the courts peacefully (other than the "Brooks Brothers Riot" which was, of course, a GOP thing), and then we went on? And as a result, the state in question (Florida) made thorough and far-reaching reforms that resulted in a better system moving forward, instead of just tearing each other apart?

Yeah, I do remember. Thanks. It reminded me that we used to be better. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot of better than the BS we are dealing with now.

Shame on you, by the way. I cannot fault people who voted for Trump- there's a lot to be angry about, and I can see someone deluding themselves into wanting to shake things up. But anyone who sees what has been happening the last nine months and still spouts this nonsense? Yeah, this is on you.

After a while, you can't blame the con man. You have to blame the mark that still wants to believe.

[Krayt]

I said "reading between the lines" of "find some thousands of votes for me" was doing a lot of heavy lifting.

QED.

[loki13]

Sure. You really have to "read between the lines" of what Trump said.

Because, you know, there is absolutely no context whatsoever. It's not like Trump was doing anything else at the time. It's not like there aren't other contemporaneous (and documented) conversations with other people. It's not like we don't know exactly what Trump (and the people around him) were doing during that time period.

You must have a wonderful life, Krayt! I can't imagine how nice it is to be you. All of these completely unrelated coincidences!

Here's the Krayt POV-
"Sure, Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount that every single person with any knowledge of the law agreed was meritless at best and probably frivolous. And then Trump's lackey at the FTC decided to hold up Paramount's sale to Skydance (Larry Ellison's son) for no good reason. And then Larry Ellison chatted with Trump a few times, like at a UFC fight. And then Paramount fired Colbert and settled the Trump lawsuit. And then the FTC said, 'Hey no problem with the sale.' These are all just events, nothing to do with another."

[Josh R]

No reading between the lines needed. Trump wanted to reverse the lawful and correct outcome of the Georgia vote.

[Frank Drackman]

"Lawful and Correct"??
Funny how the DemoKKKrat Vote in Metro Atlanta went DOWN from 2020 to 2024, almost like thousands of Dead Peoples didn't show up to vote for Comes-a-lot

[Krayt]

I do not deny what you say.

That's the cosmic joke misunderstanding here. You are all filled with facetious BS.

My thesis is you are bullshit artists, swapping arguments by the political needs of the moment.

Situational Ethics: The high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided-upon goals, and the low valuation of it, by the same person, when it gets in the way of another goal.

You do not care about any of your blather. You use the exact opposite of it in other situations.

You, and the politicians you complain about, are all awful people, plaguing us.

Awful. Look in the mirror. That's you, buddy. A guy who'll flip principles to continue an undending tear at those who get in your way. I point this out on Republicans, too. But they don't run a facetious claim to be the good guys, severed from base power grabs.

[loki13]

The idea that you would would lecture others on situational ethics ... is beyond parody.

I've been consistent in my beliefs. After Trump was elected, I said I wished him the best (because I genuinely want the best for the country) and would re-evaluate after six months. Which I did.

But hey, I am blessed in that when I see consistent nonsense, I am reminded that I don't actually ... need to see it. Which I am thankful for. It's the only feature that somewhat enables a manageable signal to noise ratio here. Appreciate the reminder.

[Josh R]

Please give an example when I flipped a principle.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't even "find some thousands of votes for me", you're misremembering the media's paraphrase of something different Trump said.

I've always been pissed off about the media publishing paraphrases in place of quotes, but in 2020 they dialed that up to 11.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and haven't stopped yet.

[Randal]

So, look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

What are you talking about Brett? He literally said "find 11,780 votes, which is one more" than the 11,779 they were behind by. I feel like the paraphrase is actually less bad in this case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Find, not manufacture.

[ducksalad]

How does one go about "finding" a precise number of votes, defined in advance?

If he'd said something like "We think some Republican votes were not counted, go look for them" that would be less egregious. It could be interpreted as concern about people being disenfranchised.

But no, he asked for exactly 11,780, proving that he didn't give a shit if 100,000 Republican voters had their ballots thrown out, as long as he got what he needed.

And he didn't ask him to look, he asked him to find. It's the the difference between a police lieutenant asking an officer to look for drugs in your car versus asking him to find drugs in your car. The first is a legitimate search and the second is a corrupt order to frame you. Can you not see that?

[John 4]

Aaaaaaand crickets.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, have a life.

[Brett Bellmore]

He specified how many he NEEDED to find, which was in fact an exact number. And all he was asking of Raffensperger was access, not that Raffensperger find squat.

I think you're missing my point here. Why the hell are the media even using paraphrases when they have quotes available? Let alone paraphrases that conflict with the denotation of the actual quote?

Because they're obsessed with controlling the narrative, and if people get to read what somebody actually said, they can draw their own conclusions. But if you craft a paraphrase, you can largely control how it will be interpreted.

So everybody ends up thinking Trump asked Raffensperger to "find" votes, with the quotation marks carefully placed to be sneer quotes, when he just asked for access to voting records.

And then Raffensperger gives him access to different voting records, not the ones he asked for, which is why Trump hates the guy: Denying him access could be explained, giving him access, but to the wrong ones?

An upraised finger to Trump.

[Randal]

Have you read the transcript? He literally asks Brad to find the votes for him. Not for access.

I don't get it Brett. There's no missing context here. "Find" is accurate. Is this some sort of willful ignorance on your part on order to protect your mindset from having to face facts?

[Mr. Bumble]

Randal. Pretty sure it is you who did not read the transcript.
A control f search turns up the term find 11,780 votes one time.
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
All of this is in the context of having access to the ballots, not counts.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I HAVE read the transcript, and asking Brad to find the votes for him is exactly what he DIDN'T do.

For instance, "We can go through signature verification and we’ll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it."

"let us do it."

But he was claiming the problems were in Fulton county, and Raffensperger was giving him that access to Cobb county, instead.

Giving him access at all demonstrated that the problem wasn't access. But refusing to give him access to the one county HE wanted to look at, but instead a different county, that made it clear the problem was just that he didn't want to give Trump what *Trump* wanted.

[David Nieporent]

He specified how many he NEEDED to find, which was in fact an exact number. And all he was asking of Raffensperger was access, not that Raffensperger find squat.

Don't know why you think, "Give me them and I'll 'find' them is meaningfully different than "You should 'find' them."

But you're also lying. Apparently you and Bumble decided to pretend that Trump didn't also say this:

We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged. And we are quite sure that’s going to happen.

But for me to even do that is playing into your game where you cherrypick single words or phrases that could be deemed innocuous when the surrounding words are ignored. Trump couldn't have given a fuck who was doing it; this wasn't a court proceeding where he was asking for specific relief from a judge. He simply wanted people — anyone — to go through and toss out a specific number of ballots based on any conspiracy theory in his head — forged ballots, dead people, people who had moved — so that he could be declared the winner. And he threatened them criminally if they didn't help him do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Don't know why you think, "Give me them and I'll 'find' them is meaningfully different than "You should 'find' them.""

Because this isn't horse shoes or hand grenades, close enough for government work doesn't cut it. If somebody asks the door keeper to be let in to conduct a search, you don't report that they asked the door keeper to conduct the search, you damned well report what they DID say.

Paraphrases really have no legitimate place in news reporting, and the fact that modern journalists prefer them to actual quotes is really bad.

And because the quotes around "find" are meant to be sneer quotes, we're supposed to imagine Trump making air quotes and winking (over the phone...) when he says "find". When he really DOES mean "find".

And, don't even pretend that you're unfamiliar with the normal conversational English meaning of "you'll find that".

They used a paraphrase that didn't accurately convey what trump actually said, because they wanted people thinking he'd said something he didn't say.

[loki13]

Here's the problem, Brett. You accuse everyone else of not getting it right. Even though everyone else actually has read the transcript (you know, where Trump implies that Raffensberger could face criminal charges for not complying with Trump). And everyone else doesn't just keep blindly ignoring ... not just the actual conversation (you can't keep cherrypicking bits), but also the entire context of what Trump was doing.

So not only is there the phone call. Not only is there the transcript. Not only is there sworn testimony as to what Raffensperger understood Trump to be demanding. Not only are there numerous factual accounts of what was going on in the White House to overturn the results of the election.

We also have the evidence of Trump trying to reach out and pressure other officials as well. He tried to get hold of Hickman in Maricopa (who refused to return the phone call after the Georgia phone call became public). He called Ducey during the certification (Ducey silenced it). He pressured other officials in Arizona. He called officials in Wayne County to pressure them not to sign official statements of certification (and had the RNC promise them attorneys).

I could keep going. Pennsylvania. In the House of Representatives. Calling the chief investigator in the Georgia Secretary of State's office directly. Repeatedly calling another Georgia official with false claims of fraud and demanding to decertify the election (that wasn't Trump directly, in fairness, but Eastman).

And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

This is some kind of bizarre fixation for you. Not only are you wrong here, but somehow you manage to fixate on one thing incorrectly, while ignoring ... everything? All of it? Seriously, are you being deliberately blind?

There are texts. Transcripts. Sworn testimony. This was a coordinated campaign to overturn election results by any means possible.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice obfuscation and deflection, Loki13.

[David Nieporent]

And because the quotes around "find" are meant to be sneer quotes, we're supposed to imagine Trump making air quotes and winking (over the phone...) when he says "find". When he really DOES mean "find".

You know, you might want to consider that your condition makes you very very very very very bad at reading social cues.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know quite well that it does, but that doesn't mean that journalists are entitled to *fabricate* social cues by resorting to deceptive paraphrases.

I'll repeat: They have no excuse for paraphrasing what they could instead quote. And less excuse for the paraphrases having a different denotation from the actual language used, just because they want the connotation to match their presumed implied meanings.

[David Nieporent]

I know quite well that it does, but that doesn't mean that journalists are entitled to *fabricate* social cues by resorting to deceptive paraphrases.

This is called begging the question.

They have no excuse for paraphrasing what they could instead quote.

Yes, they do: they're not stenographers.

[Randal]

They all published the entire transcript Brett. That's where we all keep reading it from, not directly from the Jan.6 Committee report or whatever.

Every time they reference the episode they're not gonna paste in the entire transcript. As long as it's not deceptive, summarizing is fine / necessary. Obviously. All quotes are edited; there's always more context that could be included.

[ducksalad]

Hey guys, I have a non-partisan technical question.

Suppose one went through the lists and found that yes, indeed, there were (say) 12,000 forged signatures. How does one translate that into changing the official totals for each candidate, given that we supposedly have a secret ballot?

We had a local election here where a few dozen illegal votes were identified. (Don't get too excited - it wasn't illegal immigrants or dead people or impersonators, it was people who lied about their local address so they could support a particular councilman or wrongly used the disabled voter procedure.) The judge called in the offenders to testify about who they voted for, accepted their testimony, and changed the winner of the election.

That seems very problematic to me. If I were a busted Biden supporter, I could testify that I'd voted for Trump and get the vote subtracted from that column. Or vice versa.

So what would've been the route from bad signatures to 11,780 votes?

[Brett Bellmore]

"They all published the entire transcript Brett. "

And yet, over and over you keep running into people here who act as though the paraphrase was actually what Trump said. Lying in an article and burying the truth in a footnote most people won't look at is still lying.

" How does one translate that into changing the official totals for each candidate, given that we supposedly have a secret ballot?"

It doesn't, which is why things were actually legally hopeless for Trump at that point, and thus Trump should have manned up and accepted that he'd lost, even if he was morally certain he'd been cheated.

[Magister]

Republicans always seem to believe that the tiniest shred of doubt of guilt means a Republican is totally exonerated, and the tiniest shred of doubt of innocence means a Democrat is guilty. And so any vote that was improperly counted must have been for Biden, and any ballot that was improperly not counted must have been for Trump.

With a coordinated effort to skew the election to one side on a sufficiently large scale, a new election might be called, but that's almost certainly never going to happen in a presidential election, Trumpist delusions notwithstanding. The more likely outcome is the expectation that Congress would reject one or more state's electoral votes, and the presidency would be decided through some ugly politics (like 1876), which was the plan for the Trump coup .

[David Nieporent]

Suppose one went through the lists and found that yes, indeed, there were (say) 12,000 forged signatures. How does one translate that into changing the official totals for each candidate, given that we supposedly have a secret ballot?

Trump isn't the smartest person in the world, but not all of his supporters were quite so shortsighted. Their plan was simply to discredit the election results, by saying that there were more illegal votes than the margin between the candidates, and use that as an excuse to toss out the vote and let the state legislature declare Trump the winner.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, over and over you keep running into people here who act as though the paraphrase was actually what Trump said. Lying in an article and burying the truth in a footnote most people won't look at is still lying.

There was no lying. The paraphrase is what Trump said. Do you not understand even the concept of a paraphrase? It's using other words that have the same meaning as the referred-to language.

[Mr. Bumble]

No David, the paraphrase is not what Trump said and ther was not reason to paraphrase anything except to obfuscate.This is what Trump said:
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

[Randal]

Brett, you don't even have any examples of an unfair paraphrase to point to that we could either agree or disagree was unfair. You're simply certain in your imagination that "the media" is unfairly paraphrasing Trump. Find some example or it's just paranoia.

[David Nieporent]

No David, the paraphrase is not what Trump said and ther was not reason to paraphrase anything except to obfuscate.This is what Trump said:
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

That is one sentence that he said, out of a 20-minute conversation.

[ducksalad]

DN, Magister - Yes that's it, thanks for the reminder.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you remember WHY there was a Brooks Brothers "riot" -- and why a second one wasn't needed?

[Magister]

Because Republican staffers wanted to prevent vote counting; a second one wasn't needed because of a corrupt Supreme Court decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because Republican staffers wanted to prevent votes being counted out of sight of observers. Then Palm Beach decided that if they had to do it with people watching, it wasn't worth doing.

The 'riot' didn't occur as a result of counting. It occurred as a result of moving the counting to a private room where nobody would be watching them do it.

[Magister]

The recount moved to another room and observers were still able to watch. Republicans responded with an order to "shut it down". Not as violent as the January 6th attempted coup, but not something to defend with blatant lies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Were still able to "watch" from a sufficient distance that they'd have no idea if the counters were being accurate or just making things up as they went along. We saw similar abuses in 2020, where observers were restricted to positions where they wouldn't be able to tell if the proceedings were honest.

Republicans were entitled to OBSERVE the counting, not just be able to see there was counting going on. You'd reduce election observers to an empty formality.

[Magister]

Brett's moved goalposts were just a dishonest excuse for the violence. The problem was that they weren't allowed close enough to intimidate counters and disrupt the process. They delayed the count until the deadline couldn't be met, which was the same thing the corrupt Supreme Court later did statewide.

[Frank Drackman]

He'll have to beat Herschell Walker first

[Josh R]

Are you breaking news today? Perhaps he will be content to be the ambassador to the Bahamas.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Raffensperger To Run For Georgia Governor"

He can expect the votes of his immediate family only, probably.

[M L]

Durbin said something surprisingly sensible, that Democrats should stop calling MAGA folks Nazis, in light of the killing of Charlie Kirk.

Meanwhile another professor was fired, this one for posting this about Kirk:
"The world is better off without him in it. Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids....like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him and his wife, well, she's a sick fuck for marrying him so I dont care about her feelings."

[hobie]

Cancel culture

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie -- the left ought not have started it.

[Armchair]

One might consider calling for the assassination of one's political opponents the ultimate "cancel culture"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

One might. Is that what happened?

[ducksalad]

The part of the professor's statement after the ellipses is pretty bad, although IMO it falls within the limits of free speech that universities ought to respect, even if not required by law.

Not sure why MAGA folks find the first sentence objectionable, except that it says your quiet part out loud. It is literally and obviously true that many of you value having the martyr more than you ever did the man.

[LexAquilia]

Why do you think "The world is better off without him in it. " is obviously true?

[ducksalad]

Reading comprehension problems, as usual. It said "you".

[LexAquilia]

Why do you think my side would believe "The world is better off without him in it."?

[David Nieporent]

"It is literally and obviously true that many of you value having the martyr more than you ever did the man."

[Michael P]

His name was Charlie Kirk.

And it is literally and obviously true that many of you (leftists) value his assassination.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you even see how much you're proving DMN right?

Nah, you think you sound badass and righteous or something I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd personally rather he was still around. I rather liked the guy, his family will miss him, and on a national level we've just taken a couple steps closer to armed conflict.

People on the right are saying, "If they'll kill a guy as polite and reasonable as Charlie Kirk, who wouldn't they kill?". That's a rather radicalizing thought! A remarkable number of highly placed people on the left have been exposed as approving of murder, and utterly intolerant of even polite dissent. Also radicalizing.

On the bright side, a lot of media corporations and schools are finding that repellent enough that people are losing their jobs over it, which I gather has you terribly upset. I think it's great: People running these businesses are reassessing whether it's really a smart idea to cater to that sort of hate, whether alienating half or more of your potential customer base was a good idea.

Maybe the media will pivot back to the center, the schools will stop teaching hate. That would be good fallout, even if it's not worth somebody being murdered to obtain it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A "remarkable number" in the tens? Or lower?

[ThePublius]

"A "remarkable number" in the tens? Or lower?"

Are you kidding? It's hundreds, perhaps a thousand or more. You must be avoiding the news, or just lying.

[Sarcastr0]

They’re not even bothering with nutpicking anymore. Just ipse dixit will do.

They want it that much.

[Armchair]

"it falls within the limits of free speech that universities ought to respect, even if not required by law."

The statements made appear to glorify the assassination, as well as the murder of people who one has a political disagreement with. They are rather extreme.

If a university professor, for example, called for the open assassination of Barack Obama, would that be grounds for removal? Why or why not?

[ducksalad]

Excellent question. The proper analogy would not be calling for the assassination of Barack Obama, which could be plausibly be called a threat or incitement.

The correct comparison would be celebrating Obama's assassination after it happened, saying his kids ought to be happy, and that Michele only had herself to blame for marrying him.

In the absence of any outside pressure, I'd say the celebratory post is not a firing offense unless the professor somehow implied he was speaking on behalf of the university or as part of his job, or used university resources to do it.

I don't blame the university for firing him, though. They also have a legitimate and perhaps higher duty to remain solvent and get the classes taught. If legislators and other financial supporters are credibly threatening to reduce funding to the university, the choice becomes firing one professor for his speech versus firing hundreds of professors and staff for his speech, including many who disagreed with it. They did what they had to do.

[Armchair]

" unless the professor somehow implied..."
Interesting language. "Somehow implied"

One of the issues with celebrating assassination and murder as a tool is that it implies that further assassination and murder is considered acceptable or even a social good. Cheer and support the murder of Barack Obama, and other people will think that murdering prominent Democrats will be a good thing that will win them accolades. And so they will engage in such behavior. Because it's implied it will be supported.

Now does such implication rise to the level of criminal charges? Unlikely. But there is a range of consequences between criminal charges and nothing. Removal of individuals from government employment for such actions is one of those in between consequences.

On a larger note is the question of freedom of speech, tolerance and "cancel culture". But somewhat ironically, the one item that cannot be tolerated is "intolerance". Likewise, assassination and murder is the ultimate in "cancel culture". Don't like someone's views? Kill them. Then they can't talk back anymore.

Because of that, such behavior and support of such behavior is the one thing that truly cannot be tolerated...even by those who are tolerant. And it does require consequences.

[ducksalad]

Your comment is a point-by-point repetition the left argument for banning hate speech. And BTW, hate speech is an accurate description of what he posted.

And after initially seeming to acknowledge he didn't actually call for anyone to be killed, by your next to last paragraph you relapse into incorrectly calling it "Kill them". Hating vs threatening is the most important distinction used in setting boundaries of free speech, and you're conflating it.

The theory you advocate - A can't talk because unrelated person B might hear it and be incrementally more likely to commit a crime - proves way too much and has been rightly dismissed by courts and also anyone who seriously advocates for freedom of speech.

Anyway, I'm not claiming the man suffered any grave injustice or violation of his rights, and employers certainly have more leeway than police.

As policy though, universities should support freedom of speech for students and ordinary employees, except when the speech is part of the job or the assignment, and a good line is the one drawn by the law for criminal offenses. (Which this statement doesn't cross AFAICT. It's classic hate speech.) Under such a policy the university is allowing everything the law allows, but not more.

[Armchair]

"Your comment is a point-by-point repetition the left argument for banning hate speech."

"Hate Speech" is an interesting concept. I didn't say such speech should be banned. I did imply, if you will, that there should be potential consequences for such speech (if you're making an analogous between speech celebrating the death of undesired people and hate speech). And indeed, there are such consequences.

If a college professor gets up on their social media podium and starts citing a recitation of how "all Jews should die, they are an unclean race"...then the University is well within its rights to fire such a professor. Such speech is legal. But there are consequences.

Likewise, if a college professor gets up on their social media podium and starts a recitation about "How wonderful it is that people are killing those evil conservatives, it is a cause that should be celebrated", again, the University is well within its rights to fire such a professor. It's legal. But there are consequences.

If your consideration of free speech stretches to calling for the genocide of a people, and such a person cannot be fired....I think that's a bridge too far.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not if the 1st Amendment applies.

[Refers to the firing of government/state employees for the content of their speech, I should have noted.]

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Not sure why MAGA folks find the first sentence objectionable"

27 years ago, James Byrd Jr. was gristly dragged to his death in Texas.

What do you think would happen to anyone who said the same about him.

[ducksalad]

What do I think would actually happen? Probably go unnoticed because it's old news and people aren't hunting for it. But if student activists noticed and made a case, some dean would try to fire the professor, then FIRE and conservative free speech activists would step in to defend him, and the university would quietly back down after issuing the traditional "While we find the posting abhorrent..." statement.

Here let's try one. No quotes, this is me speaking:

Theodore Roosevelt was a better president than William McKinley, so Leon Czolgosz made the world a better place. Mrs. McKinley could've saved her tears, it was her choice to stay with a man who started a war of imperial aggression.

Do you think I'll get fired? No? Timing has a lot to do with it.

[Ridgeway]

"gristly"

You never disappoint

[Kazinski]

Charlie Kirk had a very high profile on the right, so there is certainly no evidence he wasn't highly valued when alive.

But of course "If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine" isn't a new concept.

It certainly worked for MLK and Malcolm X.

[ducksalad]

True.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Durbin is on his way out the door and not seeking re-election.
His "Whoopsie! Maybe we shouldn't have done that" is what you get to say when you don't have to fundraise anymore.
He'll tell himself he was a statesman to the end.

[apedad]

Yeah, political name calling is kinda childish.

** cough * cough **

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

[Frank Drackman]

Those were my exact words about Floyd George's demise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems as if Trump's state visit to the UK is going well.

[hobie]

Lord Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US - who is also gay - was sacked last week because he had too friendly a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Looks like the Brits don't like to have their politicians with the stench of Epstein on them

[Moderation4ever]

They still have stench of Epstein on their royalty. My guess is Mandelson is paying a price for Andrew Windsor's screw up.

[hobie]

Apparently Mandelson's sin was that he sent some friendly letters to Epstein in 2008 wishing him well in the pending child trafficking trial he was facing then. Sounds familiar.

[Frank Drackman]

I see where the Pathetic POS (Keepin' it "Clean" EV!)
who murdered Charlie Kirk is getting a Pubic Defender even though he drives an almost new Dodge Challenger and had an expensive Rifle.
When I got my DUI at age 21 I had to defend myself, and I only had a Ford Pinto and a H&R 22 Revolver.

Fronk

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently the rifle belonged to his grandfather.
He stole it from his father and was worried that his father would be pissed that he took it when he wasn't able to retrieve it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm thinking WW-II war trophy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Says something about his state of mind that it didn't occur to him his dad might be pissed that he committed cold blooded murder. He really thought he wouldn't be caught?

[hobie]

I hear Hollywood is coming out with a new movie: Revenge of the Trannies. It's about a frat house of trannies that are constantly being bullied and ridiculed by the campus jocks/preppies who happen to look remarkably like Charlie Kirk. Madcap hijinks ensue as the trannies put liquid heat on the bullies jock straps and beat the jocks at the fraternity olympics. The final scene of the talent show has all the jocks on stage and the trannies shoot them all in the head. (Starring Tucker Carlson as Chip Kirk; Directed by Quentin Tarantino)

[Moderation4ever]

I'm guessing that had you shot someone back then you would also have gotten a PD and likely would not be here to make comments. Also my guess is he pleads guilty and the prosecutor take the death penalty off the table..

[shawn_dude]

Pete Hegseth is changing military grooming standards and limiting shaving exemptions to just one year.

This may sound innocuous but it's not.

When I was active duty, a good number of my fellow soldiers had shaving exemptions due to pseudofolliculitis barbae, or "shaving bumps." These men would instead use a chemical shaving tool to remove hair and would, at worst, have a very short stubble. This wasn't a problem and caused no real issues. But, all of these men had one thing in common--they're black. Roughly 60% of black men have this condition to one extent or another. So this boring-sounding grooming change basically will result in a significant number of black men being discharged from the military.

A smaller group of men would be those with religious requirements like Sikhs. Which means it will also target some non-Christian solders.

Effectively, this is going to make our military whiter and more Christian, mirroring the other changes the Republican party has been making since Jan 20th.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing new for the military. Standards were always changing.

[John F. Carr]

Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war
With the golden toilet going on before
Trump the royal master leads against the foe
Forward into battle see his minions go

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit today refused to block a District Court injunction against an internal HHS memo that resulted in mass layoffs. The government pointed to the Supreme Court's stay of a similar injunction against the Department of Education, McMahon v. New York. That stay was granted without explanation. The First Circuit looked at the government's application to try to understand why the stay was granted. The judges found enough differences in the present case to be able to keep the injunction in place without openly defying the Supreme Court. Are they more subtly defying the Supreme Court? Stay tuned for more shadow docket action.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1780___ORDER.PDF-01A.pdf

[jb]

This gets back to: if the Supreme Court wants the lower courts to follow their lead, they should probably explain their reasoning. It's pretty easy for courts to distinguish particular cases when you have no idea which part of a previous case was problematic other than the outcome.

[Kazinski]

The Fed lowered rates by 1/4 point about 30 minutes ago.

Powell is citing softness in the labor market, but he expects the unemployment rate to peak at 4.5% by the end of the year and trend down.

He also said consumer spending is soft, but business investment is doing well.

The 10 year bond is at 4.11% down from 4.8% in January.

[shawn_dude]

What is the word for inflation going up while employment falls?

...

Oh... stagflation.

Blame it on Obama!

[Kazinski]

I don't think you know what stagflation is, the height of stagflation was two year period where GDP was negative '74 and '75, CPI was 11% and 9%, and while unemployment was relatively low in '74 at 5.6% it hit 8.4% in 1975.

Compare our current 3%/3.3%/4.2% cpi/gdp/unemployment to 1975's 9%/-.21%/8.4% and I think you might understand how inapt the comparison is.

[jb]

Zimbabwe once had 79.6 billion percent month-on-month inflation, but that doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to call 9% or 4% or 2% increase in prices "inflation".

Similarly, the current situation is indeed not anywhere near as bad as the stagflation in the 70s and 80s, but when the job market is soft and inflation is increasing it's a milder version of the same phenomenon because it really limits what you can do with monetary policy to address the problem.

[loki13]

Fun fact! Do you know what was the cause of the stagflation (and high inflation) in the 1970s?

Well.... back in 1970, Richard Nixon appointed Arthur Burns as Fed Chairman. Burns was a friend of Nixon and Republican.

As we later learned (you know what would be a great idea? taping everything in the Oval Office...), Nixon pressured Burns to help him win re-election by increasing the money supply and decreasing interest rates. This was Nixon, so I do mean pressure (threaten).

Burns eventually caves and the Fed approved an expansionary monetary policy and cut the discount rates, helping goose the economy and leading to Nixon getting re-elected! YAY!

...except, um, not yay. Because that led to the problems in the '70s. Which were bad. So bad that we needed strong medicine to get us back on path (the "Volcker recession"). Anyone remember that? Interest rates needed to be set ... went as high as 20%? Unemployment of 11%?

In other words, even that ... pressure, not full control, caused all of those problems and required drastic remedies to fix. Which is why I thought every sane person had learned a really valuable lesson.

Apparently that's not the case.

[shawn_dude]

I remember the impact on gas prices very keenly.

[Kazinski]

Do you remember the Middle East Oil embargo that caused the price spike, gas rationing, and hours long gas lines too?

[shawn_dude]

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Kazinski]

I am not going to defend Nixon's economic policies, other than praise him for totally discrediting wage and price controls, but no explanation of stagflation would be complete without mentioning the oil price shocks of the 70's that had the price per barrel quintuple between 1973 and 1980, from 2$ to 10$.

One other major factor to go along with the oil price shock was the guns and butter policies during the Vietnamese war from 1966-73 where we were spending massive amounts on both social programs and the war.

The one thing Nixon did do right was get us off the gold standard in 1971 which may have also contributed but was also necessary in the long run.

[bernard11]

So bad that we needed strong medicine to get us back on path (the "Volcker recession").

Carter, whatever his faults, does not get the credit he deserves for the Volcker appointment.

[Kazinski]

Or for deregulation of trucking, railroads, telecommunications, and airlines.

[Kazinski]

Sure but it isn't stagflation.

Inflation right now at 3% is below the 3.5% average annual inflation since 1950, so its not even high inflation, just higher than the Fed would like.

Since 1950 inflation has been 2% or lower only 1/3 of the time, it's their target but they are hardly marksmen.

[Moderation4ever]

Wow, what an idea reduce interest rate based on the economy conditions rather than Presidential whims. It worth remembering that an independent Fed brought down inflation after Covid and it it without creating a recession. Let the people who know what they are doing do their work.

[Kazinski]

I think the Fed has done a pretty good job bit they started cutting rates prematurely last September.

You can see the Fed rate and CPI m/m and how the cuts may have rekindled inflation late last year. Months with rate cut bolded:

July 2024: 5.25-5.50%. - CPI 0.1%
August 2024: 5.25-5.50%- CPI 0.2%
September 2024: 4.75-5.00%- CPI 0.2%
October 2024: 4.75-5.00%- CPI 0.2%
November 2024: 4.50-4.75%- CPI 0.3%
December 2024: 4.25-4.50%- CPI 0.4%
January 2025: 4.25-4.50%- CPI 0.5%

You can see inflation was looking great July through October, but then rate cuts in 3 out of 4 months Sep-Dec may have caused the Nov-Jan resurgence in CPI, and there hasn't been another cut since December as a result.

Might have been better to wait until November for the first cut, then go a little slower on the next 2 or 3 cuts.

[Martinned]

Political pressure on the Fed works. Who needs central bank independence anyway?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Hawaiian Supreme Court justices are going their own way again. Some might remember its ruling on gun rights. It has now provided a stronger view on the Establishment Clause:

We see no reason to adopt the Kennedy test to analyze the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause. We recognize the well-founded concerns raised by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Kennedy, highlighting the challenges of unearthing and applying historical practices and understandings from the period around the U.S. Constitution’s adoption in 1787. Further, Appellants make the salient point that applying the Kennedy test in the context of state actions in Hawai‘i is even more fraught with questions and peril. It would be discordant to require that the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause be construed based on the historical practices and understandings of the Founding Fathers given that the Hawai‘i Constitution was adopted by its electorate in 1959, one-hundred and seventy-two years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

Three justices went further:

If the Supreme Court decides a case based on mission, text trickery, originalism, or imagination, then that case may have little value to a state that prefers a more principled way, or an interpretive approach that does not force “contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.”...

The Roberts Court’s off-the-wall jurisprudence reimagines the First Amendment. The Constitution creates a barrier against state support for religion and state involvement in religion. But the Court misshapes the Constitution to require government support of religion.

Two years ago, I feared the Court self-inflicted harm, eroded faith in the courts, and exposed itself to real criticisms about its legitimacy....

Back then in the big games, the Roberts Court called balls and strikes based on the pitcher and hitter. Bad enough for the integrity of our judicial system – national and subnational. But now pitches that bounce to the plate or sail over the catcher’s head are strikes. Just because the ump says so. Pretend law is not law. State constitutionalism makes it easy to consider Roberts Court jurisprudence white noise.

Today is Constitution and Citizenship Day. The Tenth Amendment reaffirms the principle of state government.

State courts have some discretion unless something is otherwise prohibited by the federal Constitution. The concurrence justices argue originalism "gaslights" and make a dig at Trump v. U.S. ("This court strives for institutional competence." Cf. ---)

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/09/hawaii-supreme-court-interprets-state.html

[jb]

It would be discordant to require that the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause be construed based on the historical practices and understandings of the Founding Fathers given that the Hawai‘i Constitution was adopted by its electorate in 1959, one-hundred and seventy-two years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

That seems like an awfully good point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

One fun thing originalists do is take terms passed in one era and assume that because of legal history the people would understand the term to mean the same thing as the earliest usage. In due process cases they’ll be like well in 1868 they were referring to the 5th amendment which was referring to Blackstone which borrowed from Lord Coke who construed Magna Carta this way, so you only have a due process right to trial by combat.

[loki13]

I don't think it is healthy when judges are openly declaring in their opinions that the Supreme Court rulings are "pretend law." And I would add that it was unnecessary given that the opinion was solely about the state constitution (and as such, it would be fairly easy to say why the Supreme Court's ruling was simply inapplicable).

That said, while I do not think it is healthy, and I would not condone using that language ... I believe that this opinion (albeit differently expressed) is becoming increasingly common in people that understand the law- practitioners, scholars, and, yes, judges.

This isn't just a matter of disagreement about the law; it is the recognition that basic process is no longer observed, and that "off-the-wall jurisprudence" that lacks any coherence is, in fact, white noise.

The law demands stability and predictability. That's not what we have been receiving.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

First, the concurring opinion is 40 pages long. I provided a link that provides a link (separately) to the majority and concurring opinion. Obviously, a single excerpt will provide a limited analysis.

The majority opinion in the quoted link cites disagreement with the Supreme Court. It discusses why it goes its own way. The concurrence also does the same. Even its potshots in that specific excerpt include citations (removed in the quote).

The concurrence explains why the state goes its own way. That's logical, especially when a state constitution (as here) uses similar or the same language found in the U.S. Constitution.

Then, there is the sarcastic tone. At some point, what is not "healthy" is what the Supreme Court is doing. We can, like Prof. Adler, blandly argue it is reasonable enough, including even saying "shadow docket" is no longer necessary, or we can call them out.

"We" would include law professors, practitioners, and, yes, at times, state court judges, at least in concurring opinions that are not the official opinion of the court. Yes, this should be done sparingly. Healthy debate on the law includes a judicial tone.

But it is not just a "just a matter of disagreement about the law" of the law at some point. That leads to a different tone, more reasonable, so at some point.

The law that results in immunity for presidential murder, and so forth, is going to be strongly attacked, sometimes in harsh language. Again, at some point, this is taken too far, but there is a tradition of vehement dissent, from the Supreme Court down.

At some point, "I learnt it from you, Dad, I learnt it from you." To quote a much maligned old PSA.

[ducksalad]

That first paragraph is fine, it's Hawaii's constitution and they should have the last say in interpreting it.

That second excerpt is not helpful. It amounts to not liking the SC's decisions supplemented with gratuitous accusations about their motives. One hopes somewhere outside the quote they gave some legal reasoning why they think the SC got it wrong.

[Kazinski]

This part is especially amusing put in context of Hawaii's practice and understanding in 1787:

"highlighting the challenges of unearthing and applying historical practices and understandings from the period around the U.S. Constitution’s adoption in 1787."

Maybe they should apply Hawaii's practices and understandings from that era:

"The last executions under the traditional Hawaiian kapu system took place in 1819, the same year that King Kamehameha II officially abolished it. The final known human sacrifice under the system was in 1809."

[Krayt]

Elsewhere I got into a debate where my final answer was he was just upset that he no longer wielded cancel culture.

Trump sues NYT for $15 million, claims largest illegal campaign donation ever.

The takeaway: They are learning to play the game.

News in the past few minutes: Jimmy Kimmel taken off the air indefinitely by ABC for Charlie Kirk remarks.

Learning to play your game. Wield cancel culture.

You long for the old days, of last year and the last 10 years.

The lesson that should be learned, nobody should be doing any of this.

This is the world you built, and you are shocked, shocked! that, As The World Turns, it eventually teaches the other side a lesson, and is used against you.

You lousy people will not learn. Nobody will learn. Everyone plays the little tricky rationalization game.

(Sigh) Stop. Don't.
Because you're nitwits.

[Krayt]

Pardon me! $15 billion

[Josh R]

I thought Kimmel's remarks were rather tepid. He said that the MAGA right was trying to score political points by denying that Robinson was anything but one of them and showing a clip of Trump answering a question with how he was doing personally over Kirk's death with a comment about the ballroom (Trump is at the construction stage of grief).

[Krayt]

I don't disagree. Indeed, early on, people were playing the de rigueur "Of course, the killer was xyz" confirmation bias game, and MAGA was the early favorite.

I don't know when Kimmel's statements were made.

I hope I made it clear though, that I don't think either side should be doing stuff like this. I can list items going back 30 years militarizing the FCC against political opponents.

The one thing I am sure of: Nobody will learn. And As The World Turns.

[Josh R]

The comments were from Monday night's monologue, taped in the afternoon which I think was prior to Robinson's text messages being released. But even if it was after, it isn't a firing offense.

Can you provide your list of militarizing the FCC against political opponents. From what I can tell, Trump47 stands alone in its attempts to silence political opponents, going much further than the FCC.

[damikesc]

ABC affiliates told ABC they will not air Kimmel's show. 200+ stations said no

ABC did not have options.

He does not make much money, if any. And if you have to refund ad sales based on dramatically lower viewership, then it is financially untenable.

[Josh R]

It was Nextar that forced ABC to pull the plug. We don't know whether government pressure was applied (we do know the FCC chairman called for Disney to pull the plug earlier in the day). Given the tepid remarks, it would surprise me if Nextar made this decision solely on their own based solely on Kimmel's jokes (unless they are owned by MAGA folks).

Stay tuned.

[damikesc]

They have a local audience that can decide to simply stop watching their product.

Nexstar cannot just ignore the audience.

ESPECIALLY given how few people watched Kimmel as it was. He was not exactly putting asses in seats.

[Mr. Bumble]

"He was not exactly putting asses in seats."
Asses were the only ones he was putting in seats.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. This type of jawboning was bad when the Biden administration did it, and it's bad when the Trump administration does it.

It's probably something Congress should fix via legislation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah - companies waiting on FCC approval sure do tend to knuckle under to please the administration!

Isn't this what the right was sure was happening with twitter and facebook?

Except here, its open. The government is leveraging capitalism to focus private action against their opponents.

[Krayt]

You're so close! Learn, God dammit!

[damikesc]

The government did not tell ABC affiliates to refuse to air the show.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Of course not. The government simply gave them a choice: the hard way or the easy way...

(Although that could have been the same government strong-arming someone else--it's hard to keep track these days!)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dude, you were fine with the government punishing people for wearing T-shirts that say, "There are two genders."

[Sarcastr0]

I don't remember that but those facts sound like it was in the classroom setting.

If you did leave that out, you're being disingenuous. This is why I often keep you on mute - something happened in your life and you became a weird zealot who is not afraid of bad faith.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. The projection is strong with The Vibrator.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And you were just caught yesterday blatantly lying about Charlie Kirk's comment about black women. Who's disingenuous?

[Commenter_XY]

The FCC disagreed. So did Disney.

Kimmel is no more.

[Sarcastr0]

Law and freedom do not matter; the only thing that matters is that the regime has spoken.

K trying to think of how an unimaginative but eager lower level Nazi would sound different and coming up empty. You sure do have a knack!

[Kazinski]

I'll be waiting for everyone complaining about Kimmel getting fired from ABC to trot out their comments when Gena Carano was fired from the Mandalorian for her political comments by Disney.

She did eventually settle her lawsuit, maybe Kimmel will get something too, but the Mandalorian was making money, Kimmel isn't.

[Krayt]

All these useless tools, amoral power brokers using every facetious tool in the book to gain and maintain power, want me to lament their sorry state at the moment? Very well, I lament their sorry state.

That's nevermind. You brought all this on yourselves, and now suffer. They use facetious rationalizations you used in the past, two this very evening, including a great one, overt, rude, divisive politics on the air is not in the interest of the American people.

Around here we all know this argument is BS, but you have happily used it to hurt conservatives in the past.

You: But...!

Me: Nobody should be doing it. And now, turnabout, and you are shocked, shocked! I lament with thee. You suffer now. They suffered under you.

Nobody will learn because that's not the game being played. Power is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile, thanks to the self-important POS Kimmel a cast and crew are out of work.

[Martinned]

That's refreshing. I wouldn't have expected you to call Donald Trump a "self-important POS".

[Martinned]

Disney is allowed to fire people for their political views, the government isn't allowed to leverage its regulatory power to compel Disney to do so. I'm not sure why that distinction is difficult.

[Kazinski]

The way I hear it, it was the affiliates that pressured ABC, which is owned by Disney.

And when you have a money losing show, that is not making money or attracting viewers for the affiliates either then the bar is going to be a lot lower.

[David Nieporent]

I see you've moved on from claiming Colbert was losing money to claiming that Kimmel was. Weird how the networks didn't seem to think so until Trump put pressure on them.

[Life of Brian]

Kimmel himself recognized he was circling the drain over a year ago.

As he presaged in that interview, as of about 6 weeks ago his soon-expiring contract hadn't been renewed.

So you're free to pretend it's possible the show was making money hand over fist, but the rest of us don't have to.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that article in no way supports any claim that Kimmel's show was losing money.

[Life of Brian]

If the financials were public and in your favor, you would have posted them by now. As I said, you're free to pretend that 2+2=5 and that Kimmel knew over a year ago they weren't going to renew his contract even though he was making them money.

[David Nieporent]

That isn't what the article says.

[damikesc]

Ask Roseanne how understanding of jokes the Left was a few years ago.

Her show was making bank and they turfed her quickly because they disliked her comments online.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did the government lean on Disney to fire her?

[LexAquilia]

Jimmy Kimmel pulled a hobie and got his ass cancelled.

lmao get fucked Democrat Supremacists

[Estragon]

Laugh it up, fuzzball

[Swede425]

LOL!
In which leftist howler monkeys finally find out their mistake in conflating freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
The idiot Kimmel thought his money was printed in the basement of ABC instead of coming from their sponsors.
And I was already having a good week.

[NvEric]

TOOL rocks !

[Jmaie]

Listening to the Thom Hartmann show today, came a discussion of RFK Jr. as president of Friends of the River. A strong believer in environmental protection, which many folks would assume made him a man of the left.

Fast forward to today, no one would claim him as a man of the left.

Reminds me a bit of Rudy Giuliani. Yes, he promulgated stop-and-frisk, but was seen as socially liberal compared with mainstream national opinion. My wife, a strong progressive, was a supporter during his aborted run for president in 2008.

Fast forward to today, Rudy is (rightly) seen as a nutjob.

Was it that he changed, or was his true nature hidden?

[damikesc]

You seem to missing the OTHER option.

The Left has moved so far left since then that anybody is "right" now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A political movement that has spent 40+ years using its free speech to lie and spin conspiracy theories about various murders and acts of violence from the Mary Knollers in El Salvador, to Vince Foster in the 90s, to Sandy Hook and Parkland, to January 6th, Paul Pelosi and Melissa Hortman, lecturing us about how free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences regarding accuracy is so fucking ridiculous it’s astounding.

[Sarcastr0]

The one thing is they'll never be able to whine about cancel culture ever again.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh they absolutely will. Some local theater is going to cancel a show by some right-wing “comedian” once tape surfaces of him saying the N-word to a kid or because he was charged with rape and we’ll get 10000 posts and podcasts and Fox segments about liberal cancel culture.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. We're already back to calling criticism of cancel culture "whining".

That was fast.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A girl gets kicked out of school for saying "I can drive niggas!" years earlier, whining about cancel culture.

A professor gets fired for saying Charlie Kirk deserved to die, a threat to a free society.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck are you talking about?
Your anecdotes are getting more obscure, and your definition of what's cancel culture and what's cool and good has become incoherent.

And, as I predicted, so much for 'I just blame the assassin' eh? You never meant it. You never mean anything other than you're going to attack schools and trans people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wtf? You've accused me of blaming others for the assassination like six times without citing anything I've said.

Put up or shut up.

"...you're going to attack schools and trans people."

Wtf?

[Randal]

Wow. We're already back to calling criticism of cancel culture "whining".

When you can dish out the cancel culture but you can't take it then yeah, it's whining.

I love that the right is making it more acceptable to fire people for their speech. And away we go!

[Michael Ejercito]

All of us Americans were dragged across the line during the OK symbol panic.

Remember Emmanuel Cafferty?

[Sarcastr0]

The right's doing a lot worse right now than your deep cut complaints.

Doubling down on whining just makes you look inconsistent.

[Bwaaah]

And you've been very consistent from the beginning, Sarc. You've been silent as your side has done the wrongful trampling, and you've squealed as your side gets wrongfully trampled.

Even a moderate person, for merely failing to show fealty to the now "progressive" juggernaut, gets your "You're just a whiny bitch" treatment.

Emmanuel Cafferty

You have irreconcilable differences with the right, Sarc. IRRECONCILABLE. Admit your softly hateful stance. Admit that and its implications.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Forgot Seth Rich. What an odious movement and ideology.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile, HRH Donald XLVII and HRH Charles III seem to be hitting it off splendidly. Lovely.

[Krayt]

"Corporations are collapsing and knuckling under to the new power who can crush their profits if they disobey, not like the previous 30 year...oooooohhhhh."

Again, learn, dammit! But nobody will.

[Randal]

Having another stroke?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I was wondering if it was just me, but I can hardly parse Krayt's comments anymore...

[Sarcastr0]

Krayt has just embraced his own weird ideology so hard he can’t properly communicate with other people anymore.

I’m not sure if there’s much danger of stroke when your head is that far up your own ass.

[Bwaaah]

Like you said: it's all about power. There's nothing to learn, except from the other side's abuses. "They've gone too low. We need to meet them there, and answer back with equal (or greater) effect."

What happens to a nation when half its people believe the other half are evil?

In truth, this isn't a story about most Americans. It's about the active partisans, the self-appointed politicos, who are a distinct minority (<20%?). But they comprise ~98% of the voice of politics and as much of the news media, so there's no quiet moderate space left in America (that would resemble the majority).

You can't hear a voice that doesn't scream. And even if it does, you can't hear a voice that doesn't scream in unison with millions of other voices. We are left with two deafening screaming mobs whose only widely shared objective is power over their adversary.

So you get Big Stupid. Like Big Stupid Republicans have no [visible] problem with Democrats getting fired for *saying* the wrong thing. ("Vile" things, people say.) And Big Stupid Democrats are quite the same. Regarding anything bad that happens to their adversary, Big Stupid is either silent or says, "Good riddance."

Remember principles and tolerance (and humility)? They're for the weak now.

[Martinned]

The Regime simply can't help itself. Even abroad they are punishing journalists for asking inconvenient questions (and the cowardly Brits, weakened by Brexit, are going along with it).

The ABC has been barred from attending Donald Trump’s press conference near London this week after a clash between the broadcaster’s Americas editor, John Lyons, and the president in Washington DC over his business dealings.

The Australian broadcaster said its London bureau was informed by Downing Street that its accreditation to attend the press conference had been withdrawn for “logistical reasons”.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/18/abc-barred-from-trumps-uk-press-conference-after-clash-with-australian-journalist-john-lyons

Here is what Lyons did that got him banned:

Lyons asked Trump how much wealthier he had become since returning to the Oval Office for his second term in January, noting that he was regarded as the wealthiest man to occupy the White House.

“I don’t know,” Trump said, explaining that his children were responsible for the family business, the Trump Organization.

“But most of the deals that I’ve made were made before,” he said. “This is what I’ve done for a life. I’ve built buildings.”

He pointed to the site of a grand ballroom planned for the White House.

Lyons then asked whether it was appropriate for a US president to be conducting personal business while in office. “I’m really not, my kids are running the business,” Trump said before asking Lyons where he was from.

Trump then accused Lyons of “hurting Australia” with the line of questioning. “In my opinion, you are hurting Australia very much right now. And they want to get along with me.

“You know, your leader is coming over to see me very soon. I’m going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/donald-trump-clashes-with-australian-abc-journalist-and-hints-at-albanese-meeting

[Martinned]

It turns out that other countries do have leaders who value free speech:

Australia’s treasurer [= finance minister], Jim Chalmers, said Lyons was “just doing his job”.

“I respect the ABC and I respect its independence and that extends to not second-guessing the questions asked legitimately by journalists,” he said.
(...)
David Pocock, an independent senator, called for stronger defences of press freedom and mocked Trump.

“That doesn’t include the leader of another country thinking he can report journos to our PM for asking hard questions,” he posted on X.

The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Trump was trying to bully the media and Australia, and demanded Albanese stand up to criticism of Australian journalists.

The Liberal senator Sarah Henderson called for the ABC to explain Lyons’ line of questioning, given the importance of trade, defence and national security matters to the Australia-US relationship. Bridget McKenzie, a Nationals frontbencher, defended Lyons.

“There’s nothing wrong with journalists asking tough questions,” McKenzie said.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly "leaders".

[Martinned]

The Great Leader has been talking about a US-China deal. Is it known yet which Trump "donor" will get to buy Tiktok?

[loki13]

You know that Ellison will be involved.

....I mean, maybe someone from the UAE, too. If they give Trump's businesses enough money.

[Martinned]

UAE/Trump relations might have suffered somewhat after Israel bombed Qatar. UEA/Qatar relations have been pretty bad for a couple of years now, but MbZ was in Doha while they were still putting out the fires.

If billions of dollars in donations (and a massive US airforce base) doesn't even buy you protection from being bombed by a US ally, what does it buy? I know consistency isn't Trump's greatest virtue, but I don't think Laura Loomer would approve of stealing Tiktok from the Chinese only to give it to some muslims.

[loki13]

...with Trump, it really depends on how much, right?

$2 billion was enough to get Trump to give the UAE (and, um, by proxy China) access to the most advanced AI chips.

I can't imagine that they would have to look too long in their couches to find enough chump ... sorry, Trump change to get a piece of TikTok if they wanted.

That said, word has been Ellison for a while. Although ... since it would involve access to the personal information of Americans without our consent, I wouldn't be surprised if Thiel gets a piece of the action.

[Martinned]

The problem with Trump raking in billions from crypto-scams is that it means his price is going up for all other corruption. (Not necessarily a problem for me, obviously. But at least for the people who are bribing him.)

[David Nieporent]

If billions of dollars in donations (and a massive US airforce base) doesn't even buy you protection from being bombed by a US ally, what does it buy?

Reports are that Trump warned Qatar in advance, which is why the attack missed Hamas leadership.

[loki13]

Given that the attack killed the main negotiator's son as well as a Qatari Colonel and others, I am not sure that the explanation holds much water.

Not to mention there is the small contradictory fact that Qatar claims that the US did not notify Qatar before the strikes, and according to the latest (thorough) reporting from Just Security, Israel's notification to DC came minutes prior to the strike and did not provide either location or operational scope, and US Officials acknowledge that the notification came too late to warn Qatar.

https://www.justsecurity.org/120470/israel-strike-doha-us-credibility/

[Martinned]

Even if that's what happened, for its money Qatar might have expected either a) that the US would have prevented the attack, using that massive air force base if necessary, or at least b) that Trump would have strongly condemned it afterwards.

[loki13]

HA! No.

Remember- with Trump, loyalty is always a one-way street, and pay-to-play is ongoing.

[ducksalad]

On your part (a)-

One theory is that the US could have shot down the incoming missiles and chose not to.

Unfortunately, another possibility is that our anti-missile defenses there are overrated. They did work almost perfectly back in June. But it could be the Iranians privately told us what, when, and where they were going to launch. There's a history of them doing that when they need to make a show of responding for domestic political reasons. And presumably the Israeli weapons are more robust than the Iranian.

Or most likely both: we didn't want to shoot them down and couldn't have anyway.

[Kazinski]

Its not surprising that Ellison would be involved because his company, Oracle, is already hosting TikTok in the US, so its a major revenue source.

He probably does not want a someone else to snap up that business.

Its also worth noting that Larry Ellison is in his 80's, his son David Ellison who is behind the CBS Paramount Sky dance merger is a major Democratic donor, if you look at his Open Secrets page and do a search you will see "(D)" 55 times, (R) 0 instances.

https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?employ=Skydance&name=David+Ellison&order=asc&page=2&sort=D

[Michael P]

https://open.substack.com/pub/drstaceypatton1865/p/i-teach-22-year-olds-they-dont-text rings true:

Who texts like that? Nobody under 30 pauses mid-confession to nail punctuation. If a 22-year-old was really admitting to a murder, it’d be more like “im sorry dude omg” or just a skull emoji and then radio silence. Instead we get this neat, grammatically balanced confession like the killer was also workshopping his MFA thesis.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

My initial impression was to note how it conveniently covered all the bases the FBI would have wanted covered. But, now that you mention it, 22 year-old kids don't generally write in that style, do they?

(Btw, the "Clippy" line in the link was absolutely classic.)

[John F. Carr]

"Hey, Grok, I just shot somebody and I need help composing a confession."

[Kazinski]

22 year old kids don't usually shoot someone because they disagree with their opinions either.

But obviously we are talking about individuals here, not a composite stereotype.

The people to ask whether this was typical for Robinson is friends and family, not people who don't know him.

But honestly, what would it take to frame Robinson, get his large family to all agree to the conspiracy, fake the history of the murder weapon that's been in the family for years, fake entire social media history which is probably cached on third party servers.

And most definitely you wouldn't want to leave the suspect alive, or his trans boyfriend.

That's quite a complicated conspiracy to pull off.

[ThePublius]

So, here we go. You guys are spinning some conspiracy theory that someone planted those texts on Robinson's phone, that maybe he didn't confess, maybe even didn't do it?

Could it be that he and his lover really did text like that? Have we seen any of their previous texts unrelated to the shooting?

[Sarcastr0]

You guys

TP, look at who you are replying to.

[ThePublius]

Yea, so?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc reveals his dumb-ass colors.

Reminds me of when House Republicans revolted against Kevin McCarthy's speakership. One of the popular Democratic takes at the time was, "Look at Republicans...they can't even control their own people."

Sarc values partisan, rule-based, monolithic ideals. Indeed, he steadfastly values authoritarian Democratic culture that benefits that team. Otherwise, he is selfless. Nada. Nothing.

[Michael P]

I think it's more credible that the shooter, and perhaps his roommate, acted it out. I don't think anyone else wrote the messages.

[John F. Carr]

Some of the texts might have been composed ahead of time.

[Life of Brian]

I don't know who Stacey Patton is, but she doesn't appear to be taking much effort to do basic research that would have obviated a good deal of her screed. One of the most glaring examples:

The “text exchange” floating around doesn’t show some blurry, late-night selfie or the kind of goofy profile pic most 22-year-olds actually use with their friends. Nope. The image stamped on it is one of the clean-cut shots that’s been circulating in the media after Robinson was caught.

You really think that’s what was saved in his roommate’s phone? Please. Nobody’s profile pic is conveniently a prosecutor-approved mugshot or press-ready portrait. That’s another sign this isn’t raw evidence. It’s a curated presentation.

The text of the exchange came from the charging document. Most media articles I've seen just mention the charging document as the source and quote portions of it, while a handful reformatted the messages from the charging doc to look like a text exchange (e.g., CNN here, specifically noting they did that) Ms. Patton either is exceptionally unlucky or selected the only source I can find that dramatized it but didn't specifically spell that out.

The charging document itself is full of ellipses that may well have weeded out things like emojis and other discontinuities, and has blocks of text that seem pretty clearly to contain multiple messages (e.g., "I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with." (She also ignores obviously stilted stuff like this that pretty clearly cuts against her "grammatically balanced" and "nailed the punctuation" claims.)

The exchange may well have been pre-planned -- one theory that doesn't seem crazy is that Robinson and the lover staged it after the fact to try to keep the lover from getting drawn in as a co-conspirator/accessory. But I don't see anything that would justify immediately jumping to the sort of prosecutorial conspiracy theory she's genning up.

[M L]

If you want to just point at random things that, by themselves, seem a little bit hard to believe, what about the idea that this kid didn't realize law enforcement could read his text messages? Even if deleted? I'd rank that above the writing style.

[Life of Brian]

Well, if they were role-playing the exchange after the fact, that would suggest he knew they could and actually wanted them to.

But I'm not sure the big picture really shows him thinking ahead in dimensions like that. For example, surely he could have gotten his hands on a different rifle than a customized rig that was passed down through the family and was unique enough that the father immediately recognized it.

[Absaroka]

Why are the police so eager to get into suspect's phones, track the location of phones, and so on? Because it seems like a lot of crooks are indeed dumb enough to leave evidence trails like that.

I think I saw a report that they had a DNA match off the trigger of the rifle? Someone who was a carefully thinking things through would think "there will be a full court press to find the assassin. If they get any DNA at all, they will be going through ancestry.com or whatever the DNA genealogy site is looking for partial matches, and given that folks in Utah are totes into genealogy, they will find a relative and connect the dots, so I better come up with a plan that doesn't give them any DNA, like wearing gloves, or escaping with the rifle. And I probably shouldn't drive my own car onto a campus festooned with cameras. And ...".

I mean, a smart person could probably make a reasonable plan to get away with a generic burglary, because the police put close to zero effort into solving those. High profile assassinations aren't like that.

Thomas Wales was assassinated in 2001, and the FBI was still working that as of 2018 (and may be still ... there was a kerfluffle in the last few years where the FBI said they were reassigning the agents who were working the case, then backed down after an outcry), In 2021 the reward was raised to $2.5M.

It's just not rational to think the odds of getting away with a prominent killing like this are anything less than astronomical. The fact that Kirk's killer apparently thought he had a chance of doing so show he wasn't very good at the criminal mastermind thing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I agree that the pics are a red herring, and I suppose it's possible the 22 year-olds could have fabricated the entire text exchange themselves in advance (which could explain the non-22 year-old formatting and expressions--they had to make them intelligible to older people) to exonerate the bf/gf in case the plan went sideways, but that's quite a stretch of plan B-ing...

Moreover, text/chat messages found on a device would have been time-stamped. The charging document just says the roommate "provided" the text messages to police, but I doubt that means he had just provided a print out...

So, for the messages to have been artificially generated to obfuscate the roommate's involvement in the crime they would have had to have created the entire exchange during the time just after the murder, while Tyler was still in Orem watching over the rifle's location. I think that is a very unlikely plan.

I was also curious about this:

"Robinson: I am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you."

So, why did he involve his roommate? At the time TR sent the first message, he was (apparently) still in Orem, sitting on the rifle drop location, expecting to be there "a little while longer yet". But he was so bored (22 year-old kids with phones, I guess?) he decided that would be a great time to share the wholly unnecessary news with his innocent roommate--and incidentally confess to every single element of the crime. That just seems...unlikely.

However, I agree that prosecutorial conspiracy as the explanation for the weird texts still lacks evidence at this point. I'm sure we will hear more about this later.

[M L]

I saw somebody make a comment like this elsewhere. The idea seems to be going around.

At first I thought, hm, maybe true that 22 year olds don't usually text like that.

But, a number of people responded that they knew autistic or neuro whatever kids who did indeed write like that. Which makes sense to me. Just look at some place like reddit some time.

Beyond that, of course, the idea of a conspiracy with all sorts of fake evidence and texts is a bit far fetched. Not saying it's impossible, but there's always a lot counting against something like that.

One thing I heard was something about the rifle. Did the FBI claim that the rifle was broken down, or something like that? Or this was part of their explanation/theory? And yet, the rifle is a type that clearly can not be broken down easily? I have scarcely paid attention but wondered about that.

[Absaroka]

"the rifle is a type that clearly can not be broken down easily?"

'Mauser' covers a lot of variations, but IMHE separating them into stock and barreled action usually means no more then removing 2 or 3 screws. One that has been epoxy bedded can take some finagling, but most just come right apart.

ETA: it's something you try and avoid doing, because the exact fit between the stock and action, the torque on the screws, etc can affect your zero. But if you wanted to stuff it in a bag to flee a shooting you probably aren't worried about that.

[M L]

Just googled my question and watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TvJ9DkG2pY

The alleged problem seems to be that the guy hopping off the roof in the video does not appear to have a gun or anything in his hands other than this backpack. If that is a normal backpack . . . I don't think any of the 30-06 I've ever handled would fit in it, even if the stock WERE removed. And then he goes and puts the stock back on before ditching it? I would think forensics could tell if the stock was potentially recently unscrewed. This does seem a bit lacking in the adding up. And I don't think this guy on the news is really much of a gun expert.

[M L]

Upon watching the video more closely . . . it does seem like a longer object he is carrying, maybe bag for the gun, maybe with a sling on it, perhaps gun wrapped in a towel? But where's the backpack from the earlier pics, maybe he has that on too? Grainy video.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, I was about to ask if you had a better quality video than the one I knew of. Not that I spot guns for a living, but what I could make out didn't seem to rule out a bag long enough for one.

[Absaroka]

Someone slowed the vid down and extracted this frame. I wouldn't mortgage the farm to bet against that being a rifle.

[M L]

For anyone curious, here's a video that seems to have a pretty good breakdown!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgeJy7VCL1U

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It does, apart from the "rifle down the pants" part of it. I'd really have to see that demonstrated better to square it with the photographs of TR on the stairwell. How thin are his legs, exactly?

It is also interesting how different pieces of misinformation are processed like pearls during an active investigation like this. Specifically, one mentioned in this thread: that the shooter had "broken down" the rifle after shooting CK. I've seen people speculate about how long it would have taken him to do it, which tools he would have needed, etc. But that claim probably originated from someone seeing the parking lot video and assuming that it didn't show a 44" rifle wrapped in a black towel at all, so the rifle must have been in the backpack--and therefore, it must have been broken down by the shooter.

Closer examination of the video, however, suggests that the shooter could have been carrying a full-length rifle wrapped in a towel after all, which, if true, would mean that he never disassembled it after re-assembling it on the roof just before shooting CK.

[loki13]

Reading back through some of the comments here ... I am reminded of the mother in Zone of Interest. Not the wife- the wife's mother.

If you've seen the movie, you remember. How she was describing how awesome it was when the ... let's say ... people she worked for were finally "brought down," and she got free stuff. And how great everything was.

Of course, that's because she had just made sure to not pay attention to what was really going on. Eventually, it was so ... in her face (or her ears) ... that she couldn't ignore it anymore.

Of course, there wasn't some dramatic scene. She didn't 'fess up, or make a stir. Just left.

Weird how some things stay with you like that.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I quoted a blunt attack on SCOTUS that was excerpted at Religion Clause Blog. The blog provides a link to the opinion, which is 40 pages long, and provides an overall reasonable analysis. Mixed in is some rhetoric that received some pushback.

One criticism is the use of the term "pretend law." The opinion explains what the justices deem warrants that term.

The majority opinion excerpt references the Kennedy v. Bremerton opinion, which has received strong criticism for allegedly misleading facts. Law based on misleading facts is misleading law. The justices call it "pretend" law.

"Pretend law based on pretend facts and unsound methods has no place in Hawaiʻi law."

Merriam-Webster defines "pretend" as "to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing."

I think a good case can be made that Kennedy applies. It's not a pleasant term. It does encourage disrespect for the law and disdain for judges who do not appear to be calmly applying the law.

OTOH, rude replies to made-up law appear to me a venial sin as compared to the made-up law itself. Now, tone can lead people to not listen. I understand that. I think American judges personalize things too much in their opinions. It's a broad problem.

It might be done more these days in some respect but it is far from new.

[loki13]

Hey now! That's me that you're talking about. I think I was pretty measured in my response, and explained fully that while I do not think I would have expressed it as the Hawaii Supreme Court (concurring opinion) did, I think that the underlying belief is one that is becoming increasingly, and widely, shared.

This isn't, exactly, new. I remember way back when I clerked in a state court my 1L summer. An older judge told me the story of a judge (state trial court) he worked with when he joined the bench. Anyway ... this judge refused to follow any opinion of the Supreme Court. Like, um, Mapp. Unless and until a state appellate court that was above him provided the same reasoning in their opinion, you were SOL. I'll let you fill in some gaps there yourself.

Anyway, as much as I come off one way on these threads, I am a strong believer in a lot of (small-c) conservative values. Judicial restraint. Judicial minimalism. Judicial modesty.

I am seeing the same things you are. I am seeing the rule of law eroded- regular process is out the window. "Calvinball" is increasingly becoming the standard - erasing the reliance interests that my clients depend on. Stability and predictability are just memories erased by a fever dream. I don't have an answer to that, but I don't know that escalating rhetoric in judicial opinions that most people don't read (and the people that most need to understand it would discount anyway) is the answer. But that's because I believe in judicial restraint.

But like I said- I don't have an answer.

[Randal]

There are two forms of pretend law. On the one hand are cases like 303 Creative, which are just virtue signaling. Reading those I always think well, what's the problem? It applies to a fantasy world, so it'll never have application to any case arising in reality. As a judge, just distinguish -- which should be trivial -- and move on.

Kennedy is the other kind, where the justices had an agenda they'd been keen to enact. In that kind of case, the facts actually don't matter. Kennedy was close enough to give them an opportunity to do what they wanted to do to change how the law was working. I'm not sure how much that bothers me. Does it matter whether it was done in Kennedy vs. some other case? I think only in as much as the opinion is made confusing by the ham-handed attempts to apply it to a case that it doesn't really apply to.

[John F. Carr]

Here is Trump's request to the Supreme Court to boot Lisa Cook:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a312.html

Table of contents:

A. The government is likely to succeed on Cook’s procedural claim
1. Offices are not “property” protected by the Due Process Clause
2. In any event, Cook received sufficient process
B. The government is likely to succeed on Cook’s claim that the President lacked cause to remove her
1. The determination of cause is committed to the unreviewable discretion of the President
2. In any case, the President identified sufficient cause here
C. The government is likely to succeed in showing that Cook is not entitled to equitable relief restoring her to office
D. The other factors support granting a stay
E. This Court should issue an administrative stay while it considers this application

[loki13]

... I mean, I was curious to see what they wrote for A.1.2.

I disagree with the argument in A. But they're going to make it. That said, if you find a protected property interest ... arguing as a factual matter that there was sufficient process seems like a fool's errand.

Welp, guess they found a bigger fool! Look, I get making a creative reading of the facts. But that's ... beyond creative.

I guess when you're just used to Calvinball, might as well throw everything at the wall, but my goodness, I would be embarrassed to sign a document with that in it. I would have just argued that there wasn't a property interest.

In other words, even Katsas (with the appellate court, who wrote a terrible opinion in dissent IMO) completely sidestepped that issue because you'd have to crazy to argue that IF there was a protected property interest, there was sufficient process.

[David Nieporent]

No comment on the fact that their position on the merits is, "Protections requiring for cause firing just mean that the president has to declare that he has a reason"?