Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.24.2025 7:21 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Court Blocks Impending Firing of South Dakota Art Professor for Vulgar Tweet Calling Charlie Kirk a "Hate Spreading Nazi"
Hide Comments (898)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/peter-strzok-dismissal-fbi/2025/09/23/id/1227570/
Better luck next time, Pete.
His texts may have been free speech, right up until he said “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”
”[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page, who also worked on Mueller’s staff, responded.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok texted back."
When he is actively investigating the Presidential candidate for a major party, and he texts that, he can't work for the FBI anymore.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/fbi-agents-text-reportedly-disclosed-by-justice-watchdog-well-stop-trump-from-becoming-president.html
Some people would also take issue with Strzok and Page using government time and resources to carry on their extramarital affair. And for using personal devices to conduct government business. (Weren't they supposed to be investigating someone who did that?)
It's fashionable among the kids today to "bring your whole self to work" and to "bring your own device" but there are very good reasons those things were historically disfavored, and remain disfavored in the public service.
Trump supporter complains about government employee use of work phones for personal messaged? That’s some notes and beams level stuff!
BYOD isn't "fashionable". It's common corporate policy.
But you have to give the company access to your device when you do that.
lisa page got $800,000 as a settlement during the biden administration Strzok got $1,200,000 as his settlement.
quite a nice payoff for their behavior
What was their behavior, exactly?
Get back to work.
He is working. Gaslighting and DARVO work online is one of his core job tasks.
Discussing how they were going to make sure Trump lost the election by means of job related activities that they discussed using their private phones to conceal the discussions.
I thought it was their job phones as Mikie seems to claim supra.
Which phones they used is not the issue.
It was the activity associated with the election and the subsequent behavior post election.
What activity? I ask again because so far I'm just seeing speech.
Gaslighto - you have had 8 or so years to get up to speed. Their misbehavior is public info. Try google
Provide the answer if so easy.
What activity? I ask again because I don't think such activity exists, and you're wrong yet again, and trying to cover it by flouncing, yet again.
brett gave a reasonable explanation
At this point you are simply playing stupid.
Brett's explanation starts with 'Discussing.' It has a conspiracy theory in it, but doesn't specify any activities beyond speech.
So I ask yet again, is there an activity here, or is it just speech you don't like?
The opinion actually frames the issue quite well, I think. Did you read it?
Also, this case is about whether it was lawful to fire an FBI agent for making many troubling comments about the subjects of two politically sensitive investigations, while he was leading those investigations. * * * When assessing the type of First Amendment claim raised in Count One, a court must balance the government employee’s interest in speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern against his employer’s interest in preserving the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations. The Court has considered the time, place, and manner of plaintiff’s comments, his rank and responsibilities, and the particular position of trust he held within the Bureau in 2017 and 2018, as the law requires it to do. And it finds that his interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone at that time was outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people, and in protecting against the disruption of its law enforcement operations under then-Director Wray’s leadership.
Also, this case is about whether it was lawful to fire an FBI agent for making many troubling comments about the subjects of two politically sensitive investigations, while he was leading those investigations.
* * *
When assessing the type of First Amendment claim raised in Count One, a court must balance the government employee’s interest in speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern against his employer’s interest in preserving the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations. The Court has considered the time, place, and manner of plaintiff’s comments, his rank and responsibilities, and the particular position of trust he held within the Bureau in 2017 and 2018, as the law requires it to do. And it finds that his interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone at that time was outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people, and in protecting against the disruption of its law enforcement operations under then-Director Wray’s leadership.
And so on. If you're advocating for a motion for reconsideration, you need to at least address the stated basis for the decision.
Sarcastr0 is literally playing on dumb on a team of FBI investigators who were actively investigating President Trump saying "they will stop him".
lol wtf, this is absurd even for the Great Gaslightr0
What he did wrong is send the we'll stop it text 1 week after opening the cross fire hurricane investigation on the Trump campaign.
That shows he had a partisan political motivation for opening the investigation, and brought (more) disrepute on the FBI.
Lets consider a hypothetical, would have been considered sufficient cause to fire Comey if a week after opening the Hillary email server investigation he texted “No. No she won’t. We’ll stop it,” if his lover was texting concern about Hillary becoming President?
I think everyone would realize it was totally improper for him to have any involvement in the investigation because he had a partisan political motive to damage her campaign, and a black eye for the FBI.
So you're inferring really hard from a bit of speech to get to an activity. And then assuming a great deal after that.
The IG found ample factual predicate to open an investigation. The investigation turned up plenty of stuff - to the point Trump fired Comey.
I find it really telling how you and Joe and Bob are all conflating speech and activity here. It's like you all know speech is not sufficient to support whatever case you're building in your heads so you gotta blur that boundary.
intentionally dense or just ignorant?
It was the actions associated with that speech. & yes speech is a component of activity.
strzok and gang continued the hurricane investigation after it became known to them the source of the steele dosier was the hrc campaign.
Address the hypothetical.
I didn't say Comey did anything wrong in the hypothetical. But he got a lot of criticism anyway. If he had sent a text like that the firestorm of criticism would have been 100x worse, showing appalling lack of judgement and damaging enough to the institution to justify firing him.
I don't really think that's disputable, or that there would be any distinguishable difference between him and Strzok, even if Strzok didn't "do anything wrong".
And I don't think it matters much that Streak was "only" Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, rather than the director.
It seemed to be for Mikie supra, which I said. Did you read?
"What was their behavior, exactly?"
Sarc is just ok with senior domestic security officials saying they are going to stop someone from being president. Just harmless 1A activity.
Gaslighto is not only okay with the behavior, he pretends it never happened.
That still isn't behavior.
Quit conflating speech and activity.
speech is a form of behavior
it showed an extreme lack of professional behavior
They were actively investigating candidate/President Trump while proclaiming they would stop him from becoming President.
"Quit conflating speech and activity."
Like you did about the FCC guy and Kimmel?
He just spoke, he didn't do anything. Yet it was RED ALERT, REPUBLIC IN DANGER!
What goalposts are you trying to sell here?
I didn't say anything about speech vs. conduct of the FCC chair.
you did say speech is not behavior Even though speech is one of the many components of behavior.
Gaslighto - what a pathetic dodge
read you comment 4 or so lines up. My response remains on point speech is a form of behavior
I was responding to Bob, who brought up the FCC.
You're also still wrong. I made it very clear from the beginning I was talking about speech not behavior. And that I thought conflating the 2 was disingenuous. You didn't argue; you hemmed and hawed for another *4 hours* before you conceded you actually just meant the speech.
Now you're trying to pretend that never happened. Everyone can read above you weaseling for hours till I nailed you down, and then you pretended you meant that the whole time.
Elementary concepts are beyond Gaslight0 's comprehension
Speech is a form of activity
Both Bob & I have explained the basic concept to you
Holy smokes -- 6 years of litigation, with far from inexpensive big firms for both Strzok and Page. Wonder who bankrolled this one?
Reading through the mile-long minute orders in the docket by the clearly frustrated judge is a hoot.
Re: Peter Strzock
Sometimes you're the windshield; sometimes you're the bug.
Deep Thoughts from not guilty.
NG...That is the correct answer. 😉
First Twitter (before X), then Facebook, and now we have Alphabet saying they were pressured by the Biden administration to censor speech on its platform.
The lunatics on the left will have their favorite responses.
-He’s lying
-Prove it
-What about…
-He’s just saying that to appease Trump or to keep from being assassinated by Hesgeth—or both.
-What law did the Biden administration break? Show me the statute! No statute? Biden did nothing wrong.
-Hey, that’s so much different than Carr
-Trump personally called Iger and demanded he fire Kimmel or he’d send in the National Guard. Biden didn’t do that. See, it’s different, Ok, the National Guard is hyperbole. The rest is pure Sarcastr0.
-I didn’t see that on MSNBC or CNN broadcasts. Must be FOX propaganda.
In other news it’s been widely reported Iger suspended Kimmel because he wouldn’t issue a mea culpa and was going to double down on Wednesday.
Also, Nexstar and Sinclair are still preempting Kimmel. Presumably because Carr told them to do so. I mean Carr gave them the green light to begin with. No way would the conservative affiliate owners have come up with the idea all on their lonesome.
I wonder if that's the same Twitter who were in court in Amsterdam on Monday asking for a gag order against this guy Danny Mekic, who has spent the last two years trying to find out why he's being shadowbanned.
https://www.reddit.com/r/thenetherlands/comments/1nnkkpx/x_wil_jurist_en_technologieexpert_danny_meki%C4%87/?tl=en
It’s a private organization controlling content on the platform they own. I heard a lot about that not too long ago. I can’t quite remember what it was about. Do you remember? Help a fella out and enlighten me.
Also;
Private entity =/= government entity
Your comment falls in the “what about category” above. I knew you wouldn’t disappoint.
What part of "seeking a court order" do you not understand? If the court were to grant Twitter's request, that would be government action. (Which is why I hope the request won't be granted.)
Hey, the Tulip Kingdom already bans speech it doesn’t like. All “X” is doing is asking for speech it doesn’t like to be added.
Like you said, it’s doesn’t mean sh!t unless the govt acts.
Is this a translating doohickey error?
“… is asking the court of appeal to impose a gag order on the personal data that X has so far withheld.” Is the govt trying to force X into releasing data it owns? Now that would be govt action, To further what end?
I'm not sure what the legal basis of the suit is. I've seen press reporting but no legal documents. That stuff will become clear in the ultimate court judgment.
Sounds like they want a gag order on release of the products of discovery?
The impression I got from the serious press is that Twitter was seeking an injunction ordering this guy to stop speaking publicly about Twitter. I'd assumed this was based on libel law somehow. But yes, Mekic is using his rights as a data subject under GDPR to get access to the personal data about him that Twitter holds. (See this court judgment from March, upholding his right to get that data.) So it is possible that Twitter is arguing that he is entitled to this information, but that GDPR (or other law) places limits on what he can then do with it.
The key word in the original Dutch newspaper article was "spreekverbod" ("speech ban"), which sounds more like an injunction not to speak about Twitter than an injunction not to use certain information.
For the record, without more detail about the claim it is difficult to be certain, but "make this person stop criticising me" isn't a very plausible claim under Dutch law any more than it is in the US.
What's not being said in any of this is why shadowbanning isn't a fraudulent & deceptive business practice?
Is the allegedly shadowbanned person a customer? If you aren't paying for the service you are the product.
What about subrogation? They are subrogating the money I am due for watching the ads.
@JFC: I don't know about the US, but EU consumer protection law also protects consumers who don't pay, as long as they don't act as a trader (=business). Protections for businesses who buy goods or services are much more limited.
They are lunatics (the Left), and believe them when they threaten violence.
Preemptive whataboutism!
I made a statement of fact. Alphabet really said that. Maybe they were playing the “what about” game. I don’t know. I acknowledge I can’t read minds.
Companies making statements that burnish Trump's narratives is good business; their truth value is not determined.
This is one of the many issues when you have a toddler-king - you can't trust statements that favor him, since he's lawlessly deploying both carrots and sticks for exactly that kind of petty shit.
The discourse here has sure elevated. Now it’s “toddler king.” I’d say that pretty soon some on the left may get so tired of the bullshit insults that they’ll actually try to honestly engage on the issues, but history shows us that isn’t the pattern for the left. They have tantrums and outbursts. Some are somewhat less violent than others, like UN employees expressing their dislike of President Trump by sabotaging the escalator, teleprompter, and audio. But all reactions are childish and/or deranged.
Bot not self-aware.
That would fall under the “he’s just saying that to appease Trump” category.
Predictable and I did.
... and your summaries of denialists' evidence-free assertions were generally accurate and fair. Although technically, nobody is worried about Trump assassinating them over speech -- they only worry about the Clintons, Obamas, and stochastic leftist terrorists doing that.
The real pros are more about leftists putting you in camps, not just murdering you.
"Viewers in 3 major Ohio cities won’t be able to watch Jimmy Kimmel’s return tonight"
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/09/viewers-in-2-major-ohio-cities-wont-be-able-to-watch-jimmy-kimmels-return-tonight.html
Censorship is bad..amirite?!
The sub-20% of those viewers that still watch broadcast TV, anyway. Pesky little asterisks everywhere.
And in any event, individual broadcast stations making individual choices on which of many available programs to air in a finite number of time slots is no more "censorship" than local libraries opting to fill their shelves with a small subset of available books that just happens not to include one that I think should be there.
lol: “ sure, they broke into homes, but only on the east side where there aren’t many anymore!”
Man, you better hope Sarc doesn't see this -- he's an absolute stickler on the whole question begging thing. Maybe you'll get lucky and he'll actually be occupied by work today. Fingers crossed!
Weak sauce attempt to deflect from your minimization attempt (if nothing was wrong why note it only impacted a minimal number) Bri Bri!
1. Hobie (and his source) were deliberately exaggerating for dramatic bloodbath headline effect. 2. It doesn't matter anyway.
From the ensuing silence, I gather Hobie was able to process both of those independent points. What's your excuse?
It's censorship when they announce it's because they don't like what he said. You've got to at least pretend to have other reasons for doing it to dodge the censorship label.
I don't think that's QUITE what they said, but let's bookmark that for now. You're saying that if someone at an earlier point chooses to broadcast a TV show, and then at a later point says they don't like what the content of the show has evolved into and that they're going to stop broadcasting it, they can (or even should) be compelled to broadcast it simply because they said they didn't like it?
I wonder if there is a First Amendment equivalent to the term lawfare? You know, where one uses influence or power to effectively silence someone, like what was done to Kimmel. Or should we try to coin the term here? Something like...speechfare
Where'd you get the idea Sinclair should be compelled to do something? I don't think they should be compelled to carry his show, just like I don't think tech platforms should be compelled to carry speech they don't like. Both of those things are forms of censorship, though.
I guess I got confused when you suggested that whether a curating decision was "censorship" depended on the state of mind of the curator, even though you reach the same result on content availability regardless of intent. If you're not saying that bad-intent curation is somehow more culpable or subject to remedy than no-intent curation, I don't get what use the distinction serves. Just an academic tag?
Depends on who’s doing the censoring…amirite?
ah clem pointed to something I found insightful here:
It's important to distinguish between official censorship by the government and criticism by individuals. Since many people are confused by this, the blurring of the two is being used to advance actual government censorship. As Ken White explains at the Popehat Report
It's important to distinguish between official censorship by the government and criticism by individuals.
Since many people are confused by this, the blurring of the two is being used to advance actual government censorship. As Ken White explains at the Popehat Report
Private entities deciding to not air an unprofitable show that has a hard time selling ads and that large chunks of their audience hates is censorship?
Not, you know, a rational business decision.
I didn’t see that on MSNBC or CNN broadcasts. Must be FOX propaganda.
The issue with the article isn't so much that it wasn't on MSNBC or CNN, but that it seems like Fox is attempting to reinforce a particular narrative. Most notably, while it says that the Biden administration did push Alphabet to shut down user accounts, it also notes that the company consistently pushed back. In particular, there doesn't seem to be any mention of any accounts actually being shut down in response to pressure from the administration.
Hey, that’s so much different than Carr
That's correct. There's a big difference between random people in an administration asking to do something, and the chair of the relevant regulatory agency threatening the license of a company to try to get them to do what it wants. They are both bad, but what Carr did is wildly more coercive.
The important part, as you seem to have missed, is the pressuring by Biden. I guess you think it’s ok for govt to try and suppress speech as long as they are only partly successful.
I missed the "pressuring by Biden" because that didn't happen. Your link says senior administration officials, including White House officials. It does not say Biden himself did it, and it does not mention anyone actually making threats like Carr did.
jb, are you defending what the Biden administration did?
No, I'm pushing back against the familiar attempt to normalize Trump administration behavior by analogizing it to some vaguely related but not at all the same behavior in previous administrations.
In both cases the fundamentally illegitimate aim was the same, shutting down the opposition.
What I see is successive steps in a series of escalations. Every little chip taken off freedom of speech, like the Biden admin's "jawboning" - which supporters at the time definitely worked to normalize - gives the next bad actor a starting point closer to the goal.
What assurance do we have that in mid-2029 we won't see Democrats saying since it was OK in 2025 to threaten to revoke a license, it must be OK in 2029 to just revoke it and then let the station appeal. After all, if it's unconstitutional the SC will let us know, right?
I don't really think it's true. The Biden administration, in the midst of a pandemic, thought what they were trying to do was prevent the spread of information that would result in people getting bad medical treatment, or avoiding getting treatment when they should. They went about this in a questionable way, and also probably shouldn't have been so confident about the how correct or incorrect Covid-related information was, but the intention wasn't about politics.
On the other hand, Trump and Carr targeted Kimmel purely because he said mean things about their followers.
So yes, we should avoid this escalating cycle of bad acts by both political parties. But we make that less likely, not more, but trying to pretend that what Trump is doing is equivalent to things that have happened in past administrations.
The Biden admin was far, far worse in its censorship efforts despite the Trump admin’s attempts to catch up.
Biden mobilized significant government bureaucracy to censor private speech: State Department (GEC), FBI (FITF), White House (ODS), and more. Officials from Biden on down browbeat social media platforms in public and private, threatening ramifications if the platforms didn’t go along.
The Biden admin played a political game during the pandemic, which is arguably far worse. It targeted information it knew was true, but inconvenient to its narrative. It “jawboned” (hate that term) platforms to remove content that wasn’t even violative of their respective policies. It targeted memes, jokes, and others pointing out inconsistencies in admin policies. It held regular meetings, sometimes weekly, with dozens of internet companies to steer content on Covid, elections, Russia, Iran, etc.
Notably, the platforms did not remove or correct administration-generated dis- and misinformation.
So yes, Trump and Carr leaped over the line of acceptability. But Biden harnessed a massive infrastructure in a systematic manner to censor inconvenient speech. Arguably, some of that speech might have mitigated some of the impact of COVID.
You’re correct. Biden couldn’t tie his own shoes.
Of course you always give a pass to Trump if people in his administration do nothing more than say something.
Jazzizhep, what pressuring do you posit that Joe Biden engaged in? Whom did he pressure, and what measure(s) did he bring to bear?
Won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest?
Samuel Alito laid it out in detail in the dissent in Murthy v. Missouri.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/supreme-court-rules-in-jawboning-case
Some quotes: ... critically dependent on the protection provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ...which shields them from civil liability for content they spread. They are vulnerable to antitrust actions; indeed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hadescribed a potential antitrust lawsuit as an “existential” threat to his company. ... Andy Slavitt, the White House Senior Advisor for the COVID–19 Response, chimed in with similar complaints.“[R]elative to othe[r]” platforms, he said, “interactions with Facebook are not straightforward” even though the misinformation problems there, in his view, were “worse.” According to Slavitt, the White House did not believe that Facebook was “trying to solve the problem,” so he informed Facebook that “[i]nternally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” ... both officials chided Facebook for not being“ straightforward” and not “play[ing] ball.” ... Flaherty [WH Director for Digital Strategy] also informed Facebook that he was reporting on the COVID–19 misinformation problem to the President. ... In the same breath, Psaki reminded the platforms that President Biden “ ‘supports . . . a robust anti-trust program.’ ” ... And far from disclaiming potential regulatory action, the White House confirmed that it had not “ ‘taken any options off the table.’ ...In fact, the day after the President’s supposed clarification, the White House Communications Director commended the President for “speak[ing] very aggressively” and affirmed that platforms “certainly . ..should be held accountable” for publishing misinformation. Indeed, she said that the White House was “reviewing” whether §230 should be amended to open the platforms to suit.” ... What these events show is that top federal officials continuously and persistently hectored Facebook to crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured.
To summarize: - Threat of anti-trust action. - Threat of removal of Section 230 protections. - Open threats that no options were off the table.
None of those threats were taken as such by the companies, given their lacksidaisical compliance.
Your dramatic bolding aside, what you see as a threat wasn't treated like a threat by the object of said language.
Alito is also using 'in the same breath' to do a lot of implication work. Almost like he's more commentator than Justice. Which, to be fair, he is in dissent. But he should be more responsible with the facts.
You can think it's bad behavior, but the Court ruled the other way for a reason - it didn't force compliance.
Meanwhile this administration seems as a baseline much more likely to abuse it's power. And companies are bending knee accordingly.
the Court ruled the other way for a reason
To me it appears Barrett main point was about standing: the plaintiffs were suing the government, but Facebook was the one who'd censored them. Facebook, in turn, was *not* suing the government. Maybe the ruling would have gone differently if Facebook was complaining about the jawboning, and saying yes we felt pressure.
what you see as a threat wasn't treated like a threat by the object of said language.
They did in fact cave, which is what the plaintiffs were complaining about.
Now maybe you think Facebook didn't join the lawsuit on the plaintiff's side because Zuck truly, genuinely wanted to submit their internal decision making for the Biden admin's review and approval, and do shit-eating apologies (which are quoted in the ruling but I left out) if the admin appeared displeased, and honestly felt contrite that he hadn't exercised his company's right to censor aggressively enough to please them. If you choose to believe that I can't stop you.
Or maybe Zuck and his team understood perfectly why Slavitt, Psaki, and Flaherty just happened to talk about Section 230 and anti-trust and maybe there are other options, all in conjunction with expressing their displeasure about Facebook's policy.
Would Biden's people have really carried out their threats? Maybe not. Which brings up this:
If I were a bootlicking MAGA, I'd counter that *maybe* Carr wouldn't have really pulled ABC's license. He never definitely said he'd pull it! He just said licensing was out there and he'd look into it!
You quite properly recognize that's a bullshit argument.
Furthermore, if I were a bootlicking MAGA, I could counter that NBC hasn't caved yet, and ABC seems to have recovered a bit of spine. See! See! That means the threats must not be very serious!
You quite properly recognize that's also a bullshit argument.
this administration seems as a baseline much more likely to abuse it's power.
Yes. But I see no need to defend the bad when criticizing the worse. Trying to censor people on social media is an illegitimate end. There is no possible "proper" way to go about achieving an illegitimate end.
Not to wave my Pom poms while standing atop a human pyramid, but a couple of very fine posts. I’m copying and pasting. Hope you don’t mind me stealing, with attribution, your hard work.
So now it’s “ok, sure. The Biden admin, with Biden’s knowledge, threatened social media companies to toe the line. But it doesn’t count because the Biden admin wasn’t taken seriously” (Sac’s crystal ball again).
That’s moving the goal posts trans continentally. Not the North American continent mind you, but from St Petersburg to the Bearing Sea.
"The document included a section about the Biden administration and said White House officials at the time pushed Google behind the scenes to remove perceived misinformation related to COVID-19. The lawyer for Google also noted that the big tech platform censored content independently of the Biden administration based on its internal policies but that the company has since rolled back those policies."
From your own link. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/google-reinstate-banned-youtube-accounts-censored-political-speech
"Pushed behind the scenes" doesn't violate Vullo.
Again, the important part is govt pushing to suppress speech.
I guess all the hand wringing over Carr doesn’t mean Jack unless Iger says he suspended Kimmel not for insubordination, but because Trump pressured him to.
Let me guess. That’s different.
The "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" thuggery by Brendan Carr is despicable and crooked, irrespective of what ABC did or didn't do.
But Biden doing so was peachy?
Don't like the rules? Don't set them up in the first place.
damikesc, at what time and place did Joe Biden tell anyone, in any context, "we can do this the easy way or the hard way"?
Andy Ngo reports on a court
"As part of the lawsuit to get the @PortlandPolice to enforce the law on the Antifa rioters outside the ICE facility, discovery revealed that on June 25, Antifa ziptied and barricaded the building and attempted to set the place on fire — while dozens of agents were inside.
Antifa also brought out bags of rocks to use as projectile weapons. They also had rioters stop and redirect drivers on the public road so they could use the street as a staging ground for violence.
@MayorKWilson has announced the city is targeting the facility. Members on city council like @candaceforpdx and @pnwpolicyangel have also been advocating for the rioters.
The Portland Police have not made a single arrest since June as the riots continue unabated."
https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1970254071870157063?t=jAbWgUpWOk35tRmp_ip9NQ&s=19
That's worse than what ICE was facing in LA, and worse collusion by local authorities.
I think we need the Oregon National guard, I'd use units from Eastern Oregon.
The FBI and the ADL chucked that up to workplace violence and not political violence. Or did they say Antifa doesn’t have a CEO so it didn’t happen?
It is, after all, somebody’s workplace, right?
Has to be one of two.
Kazinski — Because it's you, I'm too lazy to do the work necessary to believe any of that. But assuming it is all true, what would make anyone think doubling down on right-wing force will deliver a halcyon era of uncontested right-wing dominance?
You are allowed to wait for a source that isn’t a well known liar specifically about Antifa stuff.
There is no hurry.
So, now Ngo is 'a well known liar specifically about Antifa stuff'?
Probably lied about the brain damage and stay in the hospital, too?
Oh, he got a brain bleed. Probably was assaulted. But he lost that lawsuit because he wasn't in it to win, he was in it to grift. But yeah, he lies. And selectively edits. It's his cottage industry.
And thanks to suckers like you and Kaz, business is good.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/02/how-portlands-andy-ngo-turned-his-war-with-antifa-into-a-dubious-best-selling-book.html
Lots and lots of other sources where that comes from. He's enough of a bottom feeder you're not going to see him profiled in larger outlets, but he's also pretty bad at covering his tracks.
"Oh, he got a brain bleed. Probably was assaulted."
"Probably" was assaulted? It was caught on video.
...OK.
He's still a liar.
Nothing is lost by waiting some days for an actual outlet to pick the story up.
Yeah, if what you like to call "actual outlets" weren't so habitually avoiding picking up certain sorts of stories.
What matters, Brett is what actual outlets say. You are not an actual outlet. It doesn't matter what you say.
Of course, Sarc isn't an actual outlet. It would make sense for you to summarily (reflexively) dismiss what he says.
Sarc Logic
Hey Bwaaah, what liberal value did you have but were disappointed by the left’s recent turn do you think Trump is vindicating now? I mean, that whole disillusioned liberal act you did here wasn’t bs, amirite?
Does that work for you?
I mean, "yo' mama wears army boots" and all of that, but seriously, does that work for you?
Oh come on, Brett. Local news is also a thing.
If a story is hidden but for a propagandist/grifter's coverage, what you have isn't a story, it's a tale.
The top story on the local news yesterday was indeed about “smoke rising”.
https://katu.com/news/local/explosion-at-cartlandia-food-cart-pod-damages-6-carts-affecting-permanent-structures-82nd-crystal-springs-boulevard-portland-fire
You people are truly pathetic.
And oh the way this is a Sinclair-owned affiliate. So let’s hear some more about how they’re just not reporting on the massive riots and city-wide destruction.
So here is a Oregonlive.com reporting Ngo won a default judgement: "Three people who failed to defend themselves in court against a lawsuit accusing them of assaulting conservative writer Andy Ngo during a 2019 protest in Portland owe Ngo a combined $300,000, a judge ruled Monday."
Following the links: "During the hearing, Cliff Davidson, the defense attorney representing defendant Schott-Deputy, submitted a motion to invalidate the default order, seeking a trial by jury for Schott-Deputy due to his client’s inability to comply with the court appearance." [1]
The defendant was also charged for attacking another person on the same day of Ngo’s attack, according to public records. He was convicted of attempting to commit a Class B felony, and received a probation term of 36 months beginning May 10, 2022."
[1]Love the photo of mostly peaceful folks with helmets and shields seemingly painted with the emblems of the non-existent Antifa. (not a Proud Boy fan either). ...
...video of the assault
Yes, I am familiar with Ngo's deal. No, I have not seen the video but I have seen the hospital record he posted.
He was assaulted. He's also a huge liar.
Both things can be true.
It's Gaslight0. Do you expect anything else, like actual substance?
A few months ago, my project at work got a new PM, and the new guy lives in Portland. He insists that it's a great place, totally not like all the crazy right wingers say, because from his house on the other side of the river from downtown, one can barely see the smoke rising constantly from the riots.
Yeah, Portland has in a permanent state of being destroyed over and over.
How the hell do you think anyone would buy that shit?
The guy lives there but what does he know? Mikie has Newsmax reports!
There is a lot of ruin in a city.
I visited Chicago but everybody there had been murdered. So I left, but only after being murdered twice.
(I think the PM was making a joke.)
“one can barely see the smoke rising constantly from the riots.”
This is risible and false.
If you're going to make shit up, at least try to make it sound remotely plausible.
"constantly" was my elaboration. "barely" was a simplification: he actually had some condition about looking between buildings or something like that.
You and he both come across as die-hard denialists, just about slightly different topics. He won't admit that Portland is under siege, you won't admit what he did admit.
“Portland is under siege”
Once again, this is risible and false.
Denialists gonna denialist.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/portland-to-issue-violation-against-ice-facility-under-siege-by-antifa-extremists
Are you hiding membership in some other Antifa franchise or something?
There are— at most— 1-2 dozen people protesting the ICE facility in SE on any kind of regular basis. The city is not under siege. You are a liar.
You probably shouldn't be so credulous and actually read the articles.
"Under siege" here means people standing outside protesting. Sometimes they even block the driveway!
And somehow your brain gets from there to the whole city being under siege. And even better--you think you have a better grip on what life in Portland is like than a person you know and work with who actually lives there.
Maybe go try to visit Portland sometime. It's a pretty cool city. There's a lot of homeless people there, but I find walking around safe and if you're too afraid it's easy to get an Uber.
“a person you know and work with who actually lives there.”
I do not actually believe this story. He already admitted “elaborating”. Liar liar pants on fire.
Well, the facts we have are:
1) The person says that Portland is fine. 2) The person sometimes looks out the window.
From this, Michael P has concocted the rest of the story to match what he reads online.
Yawn. You are a pair of sad, hypocritical Antifa apologists.
Ain't no fact that'll get Michael to not believe what he wants to believe.
You don’t even have to rely on the imaginary friend. I am in city limits this moment.
"Ain't no fact that'll get Michael to not believe what he wants to believe."
Michael is one of several commenters here who call to mind Mark Twain's observation, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
As well as Jonathan Swift's words of wisdom, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”
Point out the smoke, you gormless gobshite.
https://katu.com/weather/cameras
The roots are very organized, considering that Antifa isn't an organization. "Rose City Antifa" has even given specific protocols for prospective members or the public to determine how to authenticate members of Rose City Antifa.
But they probably don't have membership cards, so some people here will insist that means they aren't an organization and so can't perpetrate a conspiracy.
The roots are very organized
They sure are: https://www.youtube.com/@theroots/videos
Now that antifa is officially recognized as a domestic terror organization, there’ll finally be some serious investigations. Won’t it be fun to follow the money?
Of course, there literally isn't any such thing as "recognized as a domestic terror organization." Federal law allows the government to designate foreign terrorist organizations — as we've seen with Trump's lies about TdA et al. — but there is no provision for doing so with respect to domestic groups. Trump can call an organization that, but it's just rhetorical name calling, not "officially" doing anything.
Won’t it be fun to follow the money?
It won't be fun for the poor US Attorney/FBI agents tasked with doing that, who will be forced to come up with some diplomatic way to say to Trump, "You moron, there is no money to follow, because there's no organization" at which point they'll be fired for failing to effectuate his delusions.
Whether one uses informally "recognized" or designated" is not significant. What is significant is being a domestic terrorist organization in which some person, persons or entities are providing training, support and money. Awful lot of violent and disruptive activity coming out of an organization that doesn't exist.
And, of course, the "designation" (feel better?) of Antifa as a domestic terrorist origination by President Trump is official, President Trump being the highest federal executive official in this country.
So what? He's not a king. He's just an employee. He doesn't get to issue royal proclamations. Him saying things doesn't make them official.
If, by just an employee, you mean he is the Commander in Chief, Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate, then I agree. And the President's designation of an entity as a domestic terrorist organization is valid to focus executive resources and investigative priorities. It is NOT outside the president's constitutional powers and most definitely NOT illegal.
Oh and, just to reiterate, he officially exercised his constitutional authority by means of the proclamation "designating" (feel better?) Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
Sure, he can designate whatever he wants to be whatever he wants. He could designate your human soul to be the Demon of Sphincters. But since that doesn't exist -- your human soul, I mean -- it's sort of moot.
Acting pursuant to his constitutional authority, President Trump issued an Order, with supporting findings, designating (that’s for crazy Dave, he likes that word) Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. I’m not sure how that is invalid because otherwise it would mean he can designate “whatever he wants to be whatever he wants,” probably because it doesn’t. But you have apparently given this, and apparently sphincters, a good deal of thought so I’m sure you have a reason so outstandingly brilliant that it simply can’t be put into words. Maybe break out your crayons and draw a pretty picture? (Without bodily orifices please)
Rivabot! Analogize!
No crayons? And you may be unaware, being a parrot troll, but this doesn't actually support your insinuation that there is anything improper or invalid about President Trump's Order designating (just for Crazy Dave, he likes that word) Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. To be fair, such an argument would be a challenge for a reasonably intelligent adult. For an idiot parrot troll? Just not happening.
But please don’t take the above personally. It’s not solely a reflection on you with your odd toddler like fascination with sphincters or even parrot trolls (it’s just your job, I understand). In general, the left doesn’t want to ever engage in an honest argument. Is it because you’re just stupid or do you simply not want to admit your true position on the issues? Probably a little of both.
I never said improper or invalid. I said moot!
That makes no sense. I'd rather you posted one of your crayon drawings than more idiocy like that.
"Now that antifa is officially recognized as a domestic terror organization, there’ll finally be some serious investigations. Won’t it be fun to follow the money?"
The Ballad of Antifa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUl-PqIOuGc&list=RDsUl-PqIOuGc&start_radio=1
FWIW, disco still sucks.
I'll take the contrarian position here -- disco did NOT suck. For the first time in decades there was a return to formalized dancing.
What did suck was popular radio playing "Staying alive" in constant rotation until everybody was sick of it. Listening back now, after a time, the music was actually pretty good.
CV High School, class of 1979.
Now hold on a second. Stop dissing "Staying alive." Is there a better song for a barroom fight?
Reminds me of a drinking problem.
There was good disco, and bad disco, just like any genre. For instance Chic was pretty damn good, led by Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards, for my money one of the best pop bassists of all time.
". . . discovery revealed that on June 25, Antifa ziptied and barricaded the building and attempted to set the place on fire"
"Antifa also brought out bags of rocks to use as projectile weapons."
Kazinski, do you and/or Andy Ngo claim that "Antifa" is a sentient human being with a functioning cardiovascular system? Does it have opposable thumbs?
I am curious. When "Antifa" was civilly sued, how was service of process effectuated?
Antifa, eh? Tell me, who is the leader of this Antifa group you’re talking about? Who is their spokesperson? If it’s such a huge and dangerous organization, both should be easily identifiable.
This weird insistence that Antifa is a group, rather than the left-wing version of militias, is so incomprehensible to me. Why is it so important to the hard right that Antifa is a group? And how do they keep that belief when there are literally zero people identified as leadership or spokespeople for the group?
But, militias ARE groups. Sure, the Michigan militia isn't the SAME group as the Proud Boys, but nobody pretends the militia movement is "just an idea".
And, seriously, this whole "I'm going to demand you publish a grand jury report in your next blog comment, or shut up." bit was tired the first time somebody pulled it. Did somebody just distribute a left-wing style manual with that in it?
Brett mixes up militas with a particular militia. I'm not sure if he noticed, he's so focused on this vision of Antifa that looms very large in his brain.
No, I think that's a pretty good analogy. I think it is far from proven that there's some Antifa central high command, (Though that's also far from ruled out.) but they are at least at the "multiple groups that are individually organized" level of organization.
That's a brand, it's not an organization. Any more than 'miltias' is an organization.
"Militias", however, are organizations. Maybe it's the "a" ending indicating plural already that's misleading you?
As though you've been jumping around about antifas?
You're not being consistent at all.
Your determination that Antifa (Plural!) can't be guilty of anything because it's just an idea, is shortly going to have a very heartbreaking encounter with legal reality.
You've now so diluted your definition of an organization, Antifa also can't be guilty of anything in your book.
And yet here you are, smugly proclaiming Trump's gonna cite Antifa to go after SOMETHING.
Kind of a terrible pivot, if you care about Trump abiding by facts and law.
“ Though that's also far from ruled out”
After all this time and in the face of the nonstop insistence by the right (without even the most basic details of the “organization”) that it’s true even if there’s no proof, yes it has been effectively ruled out.
“ but they are at least at the "multiple groups that are individually organized" level of organization.”
So you admit it isn’t a group? Or is this you trying to insist a collection of different groups is also a monolithic entity?
"And, seriously, this whole "I'm going to demand you publish a grand jury report in your next blog comment, or shut up." bit was tired the first time somebody pulled it. Did somebody just distribute a left-wing style manual with that in it?"
Brett, suggestions that someone should be criminally prosecuted should not be bandied about casually. Even opening a DOJ investigation should require adequate predication. "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime," a quote attributed to Stalin's henchman Lavrentiy Beria, should not be the governing maxim.
“ but nobody pretends the militia movement is "just an idea".”
Yes, they do. It is a word that describes different groups that share similar ideologies. That’s the difference between a group and a movement or idea or ideology.
Groups are specific entities. Antifa isn’t that, it’s a collection of groups.
“ And, seriously, this whole "I'm going to demand you publish a grand jury report in your next blog comment, or shut up." bit was tired the first time somebody pulled it.”
What are you talking about? I said nothing like that, I merely asked you to provide some basic details (like who “Antifa” is lead by or who their spokespeople are). Which you can’t do because no such people exist.
Saw my first-ever Jimmy Kimmel performance. I can see why Trump/MAGA types don't like him. His humor struck me as more sardonic than funny. As a 1A defender he was eloquent and dogged, but without much show of original insight or brilliance. To the extent that humor relies on surprise and unexpected insight, Kimmel was not very funny. It has been decades since I saw any right-tending comic who could compete with Kimmel, but it was still a lowish bar.
What is it that since the days of William Buckley has kept American conservatives from being funny? Maybe it's only because I do not count Johnny Carson or Jay Leno among conservatives, although they might belong there. I'm guessing older American conservatives remember both fondly, and fault Colbert, Oliver, and Stewart for not being more like them.
As far as I can tell no one in US late night manages to be consistently funny. They have their moments, but it may not be possible to deliver that much material that quickly and still be funny.
Perhaps you are unaware of how it works. I’m not doggin’ ya. They have a team of writers,
You would think several writers could fill a short monologue daily with jokes that hit most of the time. Letterman, Leno, O’Brien, Carson, Ferguson et al could do it.
It’s difficult to be funny and mean-spirited at the same time. Rickles could pull it off because everybody knew it was his bit. I don’t get the feeling Colbert or Kimmel are doing a bit. They genuinely greatly dislike 40% if Americans.
They do have a team of writers, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient to deliver consistently funny output.
There's this notion on the left that everything, bar nothing, has to be about the politics. "The personal is the political." After that, it can be about itself, but the politics come first.
Somebody like Rickles could be consistently funny, because being funny WAS job #1.
For a guy like Kimmel, it's job #2.
Don Rickles didn't have a job where he had to come up with 10+ minutes of new, topical material every day.
Yes. It is not the job of a late night host in the US in 2025 to avoid political topics. If something important happens in society, Americans expect their favourite late night host to talk about it that evening.
"It is not the job of a late night host in the US in 2025 to avoid political topics."
Right, it's the job of a late night host in the US in 2025 to advance the cause, and if he can be funny on the side, that's permissible.
And the networks are wondering if that's the job they SHOULD be hiring them for, because it does kind of get in the way of the bottom line.
Don Rickles didn't avoid political topics. But neither did he relentlessly take a particular side, everybody was fair game.
It might have something to do with Jon Stewart’s success.
And Fallon's lack of success.
Don Rickles
Brett...his height was like 50 years ago. I think you may be out of touch.
Still funny as fuck. You probably don't think the 3 Stooges are funny either. Jay Leno had a whole bit about that. "Didja evah notice how no woman laughs at the 3 Stooges??? You can have 5 NASA Rocket Scientists watching and they'll be laughing their asses off, and a Waitress will walk up "That's not funny!!!"
Frank
Today's jokes are stale retreads or gutter talk - pedantic garbage. What may be 'funny' are the verbal gymnastics of 'liberal' types, but it's more like Winston Smith at work.
Lack of historical roots by pandering to so-called minorities leaves out tools for common jokes and word-play. Intelligence levels have dropped and joke writers reflect this with evermore base humor which is now very old hat, boring, and not funny.
.” Yes. It is not the job of a late night host in the US in 2025 to avoid political topics.”
It never has been the job to avoid political topics. NEVER. The difference is they could make jokes about political figures or issues, but they weren’t actually being political. If that makes sense. They weren’t taking a stand or trying to make a statement. They were being funny. It was an escape from the 9-5 grind and the woeful world.
Today it is make the political statement or take a stand. If we can make it funny, that’s cool. If not, oh well. It’s not my job to be funny.
Again, they made a monologue mostly funny day after day in the past. It’s not some unattainable goal. The formula is there. They just don’t want to follow it.
Today it is make the political statement or take a stand.
Says you. I say the right's just become a lot more touchy due to outrage-baiting and the alure of being oppressed.
Ok. Colbert and Kimmel don’t take political stances. My bad. They are the political commentary equivalent of Switzerland.
I feel so much better now. I was pretending they were far left. When in reality I couldn’t really tell if Kimmel was crying when Trump was elected because he was happy or sad. Now I know when he said it’s a horrible day for America he was being facetious.
I am challenging the distinction you make between making joking about political topics and taking a stand.
The right blows up jokes about them into big to-do's because no one lost money overestimating the appetite on the right to get affronted about trivial shit.
Reread my comment about mean spirited comedy as a bit, and mean spirited comedy that is viciously and intentionally meant to attack.
Funny, I am old enough to remember Carson, Leno, SNL, Letterman and even Kate arrivals like o’Brien and Ferguson poking fun of everybody and conservatives didn’t have a problem.
The “comedy” has changed and you can’t grasp the distinction.
Again, I am not sure it's the comedy, since it looks to me more like the right's window of when they'll get into a big angry.
What my vibes indicate is coverage by right-wing media has been what's changed, not the underlying partisanship of late night. And not any underlying character of the comedy.
Colbert and Kimmel absolutely make fun of the left of the aisle. I could probably dig up clips if you insist. Meyers...less so. Dunno about anyone else currently on.
But that's just how it hits me in particular. I would not venture to say I have any generalizable insight. Unlike certain obligate partisans who would like to explain some objective Truths about Comedy.
Mean spirited comedy as a bit? That's been a thing since I've been alive. Don Rickles, name checked above, was pretty...pointed, at the very least.
See this Carson skit from 1982: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evt6As72m4
You could take it as mocking Reagan for being a little slow. First and foremost, it's meant to be funny.
I can recall that who Johnny Carson joked about in his Tonight Show monologue was a pretty accurate barometer of public opinion.
Late night died when Leno and Letterman retired.
Brett complains other people think everything about politics. Next, he will explain why sitcoms are a plot by the left to make everyone hate white men.
Highly productive comedians can generate about an hour of new material a year.
Expecting even a team of writers to deliver the same quality of material every night is highly unrealistic.
Late night shows are really about having a "funny friend", the humour isn't supposed to be exceptional on its own, just engaging enough to keep the relationship going.
They Censor "Gutfeld!" in your Sharia-Law Shithole?? Love the constant tension where you expect his "Sidekick" Tyrus (a 400lb 6'7(not sure what that is in cm) Pro Wrestler threatens to throw Greg in a locker and (redacted) him. Greg himself makes frequent jokes referring to his own Homosexuality, it's a peculiar strain of Amurican Humor where guys prove they're not Homos by acting like they are.
Yeah. this is funny.
Martin, I expect you are correct on that score. I find the Maher does pretty well on a once per week regimen.
I was thinking of John Oliver, and of other shows in other countries.
I would have thought that Bill Maher is an example of what Brett was complaining about, of someone who doesn't prioritise being funny above everything else, because he's too busy pushing his political POV.
Two different species. Maher cracks biting jokes off the cuff during conversations. We used to call that wit. The other guys are reading pre-written jokes off a teleprompter.
Yes, he is pushing his POV on an opinion based program. He also has people who disagree with him to counter his POV.
MRC, believe them or not, published a six month review of late night talk shows. Of the dozens upon dozens of political figures (politicians, pundits, insiders) on the shows, only one self-identified as conservative. They have no desire to hear, much less debate, the other side.
Wow have any of you ever even watched a late night talk show? Their purpose is neither to be funny, nor to be political, nor to push a point of view. Their sole purpose is to cross-promote other media properties, particularly Hollywood's.
I don't know if you know this, but Hollywood celebrities are pretty universally not right-wing fascists. That's why all the late night talk shows skew left. The whole ecosystem they're amplifying is largely left-wing, including their audience. They're not even trying to get your red neck to tune in to watch Aubrey Plaza banter with Kumail Nanjiani. Are they wrong?
The dumdum right is busy with conspiracy-theory fodder like Unsolved Mysteries or whatever the modern equivalent is. You can have your conspiracy-mongering and we'll take our self-congratulatory smugness hour. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I have never found Oliver funny, only annoying and very predictable.
Yes, he has that effect on fascists.
He was hilarious when he was still on The Bugle podcast with Andy Zaltzman. His show on HBO isn't as good.
Political satirists, which is the type of comic we're discussing, are all about their political POV--it's their actual job.
SNL has been not-consistently-funny for 50 years, and they have a team of writers with a week to come up with sketches.
I thought PJ O’Rourke was pretty funny.
He was, that whole "I smoke and I'm healthy" bit didn't end well though.
You might enjoy Tuccille, then.
It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand
I have the first edition, no idea what the revisions are like...
Giving the govt power and money is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Gave my grandfather “Parliament of Whores” as a gift one year. He would turn off the TV if they said “damn” too much. I was worried about how he would react to the language. I have never heard my grandfather, an aerospace engineer, laugh so hard before or after. Except every time Sgt. Shultz said “I see nothing.”
Partisans, including myself, should never ever pretend they have any kind of universal inroad into what's funny.
You can say what *you* think is funny, or what's charming, or what's witty. But the moment you think you can universalize that you're making a mistake.
Lately, the hands down king of comedy is the Daily Show with a rotating line up of stand up comics and John Stewart as the main guy. The content written and delivered is just awesome
30 Seconds of any random 3 Stooges Episode has more laughs than Kimmel/Fallon/Colbert/Stewart's entire careers.
I've found "dry bar comedy" pretty hilarious, the few times I've been exposed to it.
From Yesterday's the Daily Show about Tylenol:
[Reporter is asked about Tylenol] Reporter: I imagine the Tylenol people have quite the headache today. Of course they can't take Tylenol for it. Well...they can, but they'll risk having a child that's excellent at Jeopardy.
Ann Coulter used to be funny.
Maybe, but not intentionally so.
Did you see Cums-a-lot yesterday,? explaining how she didn't pick Booty-Judge because he's a Homo, then picking that prancing Fairy Sergeant Major Tim Pepper-Waltz. I thought I was going to pop an Aneurysm.
You watch The View?
For laughs, of course just looking at Whoopie is enough, reminds me of "Buckwheat" from the "Our Gang" series.
His mom’s basement (or as he’d say Basement) only gets the one channel.
His humor struck me as more sardonic than funny.
I don't disagree with your overall assessment of Kimmel, but just to be clear, Kimmel is not a standup comic. (Even if he were, of course, that would not make his role to provide original insight or brilliance.) He's a late night talk show host. He's supposed to be amusing and entertaining, of course, but you don't watch one of these shows for the host's set. It's to warm up the audience for the rest of the show, with the guests, not to have the audience howling in the aisles.
Just who does watch those shows? How many who comment here do?
He is disgusting and repulsive.
I've never watched the show but several years ago I saw a clip where was ranting about guns, faking tears and politicizing some tragedy, and that was all I needed to see. It is truly sick how he wants regular Americans to be defenseless against murder and rape while he as a rich celebrity gets to keep his armed security.
So when I told Jazzizhep that no one lost money overestimating the appetite on the right to get affronted about trivial shit?
This is what I'm talking about.
No disagreeing with ML. No, disagreement means you're in favor or rape and murder.
Certainly, no jokes allowed.
Yet again, the far right have become exactly the caricatures of blue-haired perpetually angry feminists they made fun of 20 years ago.
He wasn't attempting to make any jokes. He was angrily lecturing America about guns, and suggesting that if you disagree with him that means you're OK with schoolkids getting murdered.
He's truly a sick person.
So leaving aside all issues with 'I saw a clip', your response to him condemning those who disagree with his political position is for you to do the same thing, but more so.
Congrats; you've played yourself.
Didn’t you just say they don’t take stands or make political statements?
Don’t worry, I forget your dumbazz comments almost as fast as you do.
No, my illiterate friend. As I corrected you about the previous time you strawmanned me with the exact same strawman: "I am challenging the distinction you make between making joking about political topics and taking a stand."
You replied to my comment, but I guess you didn't understand what I wrote.
I can't tell if you're in bad faith or so deeply in the vibes you can't see real life.
As Garry Wills wrote in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:
Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, worship of Moloch has been the sign of a deeply degraded culture. Ancient Romans justified the destruction of Carthage by noting that children were sacrificed to Moloch there. Milton represented Moloch as the first pagan god who joined Satan’s war on humankind: First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears, Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96) Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).
Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, worship of Moloch has been the sign of a deeply degraded culture. Ancient Romans justified the destruction of Carthage by noting that children were sacrificed to Moloch there. Milton represented Moloch as the first pagan god who joined Satan’s war on humankind:
First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears, Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96)
Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).
https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
Good writer. Bulkshit, simple, reductionist take.
He’s the guy out there protesting the leftist in Hollywood glorifying gun violence and the impact on culture right?
O, look, another Israeli drone attack against a ship in international (or at least not Israeli) waters.
https://www.politico.eu/article/palestine-gaza-aid-flotilla-crew-drones-greta-thunberg/
OMG!! How many casualties? How many are visiting Davey Jones’s locker?
Oh, what you mean is Greta Thurberg’s publicity flotilla was “attacked” with nuisance measures. If she doesn’t want to be annoyed on the open sea, perhaps she shouldn’t make a production of saying she is going to bust the blockade. She might actually reach Israeli waters. But, of course, that isn’t actually her goal. Is it?
Oh, the picture of the “aid” sailboat is probably carrying more weight in people than actual aid. Hilarious!!
I bet you were salivating at the opportunity to post this “injustice.”
WTF are you talking about? Attacking people is OK as long as you don't do a lot of damage?
They were “attacked” with sound bombs. I hear they have the yield roughly equivalent to the MOAB (11 tons of TNT).
They weren’t attacked. They were annoyed.
No comment on how much aid that sailboat could have been carrying? Minus their own provisions, of course. Jeez, they could have left from the east coast of Italy and carried more “aid.” But again, that wasn’t their goal. They wanted to poke Israel. And like all leftists, didn’t like being poked back.
Martinned — It was the United States which opened the field of drone strikes in warfare. Since the day that began, I have predicted the US will come to rue the day it made that choice.
It looked to me like a repeat of ill-considered strategic dogmas from the early cold war, where a heedless rush to seize offensive advantage failed to consider a reckoning to show the US had more to lose defensively than any other nation. It was stupid for the fattest nuclear target in the world to promote a nuclear arms race. China's entry into the Korean War was one prompt example to show why. At the time, the US strategic nuclear capacity was all-but-useless against still-agrarian China.
I think asymmetry in drone warfare may prove even more to US disadvantage than in the case of nuclear weapons. Unlike nukes, use of drones is anything but unthinkable.
It seems like a rich, technologically proficient nation will always be at a relative drone disadvantage compared to less-favored others. Drone use can turn poverty and low-tech capacity into sudden strategic power. What those others could not strike previously, they can now. That is not a trend the US should advance by, for instance, blowing up tiny drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean.
Actually, the most famous example of an NGO's ship being attacked in international waters in order to stop the NGO achieving its goals was the sinking of Rainbow Warrior in 1985. That was the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
The again, the French don't just do WTF they want. They care about not being an international pariah.
In 1987, after international pressure, France paid $8.16m to Greenpeace in damages, which helped finance another ship. It also paid compensation to the Pereira family, reimbursing his life insurance company for 30,000 Dutch guilders and making reparation payments of 650,000 francs to Pereira's wife, 1.5 million francs to his two children, and 75,000 francs to each of his parents. (...) In June 1986, in a political deal with Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange, presided over by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (US$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise, in return for which Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao Atoll for three years. (...) Following the breach of the arrangement, in 1990 the UN secretary-general awarded New Zealand another NZ$3.5 million (US$2 million) to establish the New Zealand / France Friendship Fund. Although France had formally apologised to the New Zealand Government in 1986, during a visit in April 1991, French Prime Minister Michel Rocard delivered a personal apology. He said it was "to turn the page in the relationship and to say, if we had known each other better, this thing never would have happened". The Friendship Fund has provided contributions to a number of charity and public purposes. During a visit in 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls reiterated that the incident had been "a serious error".
Yeah, the French killed people in that attack. Didn't just annoy them.
Well, killed one person, anyway.
"sank the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, Rainbow Warrior, at the Port of Auckland" wikipedia
Not "international waters", New Zealand waters.
Apologies, I misremembered. It's not very relevant for the legal position though, although it matters for the damages afterwards. Legally, the key fact was that it wasn't in French territorial waters.
Are you suggesting that if the US hadn’t developed the atomic bomb nobody else would have? If we weren’t the first to use drones in combat, nobody else would have?
The whole world would be a much better place if it weren’t for those damn Americans.
Like you said, drones can improve the strength of relatively weak powers. It is incredulous they wouldn’t have figured that out on their own.
I get the logic. Look at supersonic missiles. We developed defensive weapons against conventional missiles. Our adversaries had to one up it. What is illogical is that if we didn’t lead and keep pushing forward nobody would try to “one up” us. Not. How. The. World. Works.
Does he think that because he thinks the Communists would have won, or does he think that because he thinks the Nazis would have won?
Man, this comentariat’s Martinned fan fiction is getting complex.
In this case I think it had nothing to do with me.
Jazzizhep — Like you said, drones can improve the strength of relatively weak powers. It is incredulous they wouldn’t have figured that out on their own.
Absent provocation, I don't know of many examples of weak powers initiating attacks against much stronger ones. Do you? On the other hand, a bully which initiates murderous provocations might reasonably expect vengeful retaliations, perhaps even concerted retaliations from weaker adversaries who make common cause.
It's not that hard to take drones out of the air by fouling their props, jamming their communication, or frying their electronics and I'd be REALLY disappointed if the War Dept doesn't have the ability to do tis.
Good!
Gaza is being blockaded due to its acts of war and terror upon the Israeli people. Rape, murder, and more.
A blockade runner trying to deliver supplies and support to these murderers is supporting the murder and rape of Israelis and Jews.
It's lucky for those blockade runners that they were not trafficking contraband in the (recently re-renamed) Gulf of Exploding Narcoterrorists, or they might have had a much worse day of it.
Summary executions by his king get Mikie really excited.
We have no idea who we're killing. Or at least our government is telling us to trust them and leaving it at that.
Michel does love to trust the regime. Nom nom boots.
So your argument is that it is outrageous that NGOs are trying to interfere with Israel's war crimes?
For the record, this is one of the examples of war crimes given in the Rome Statute:
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
You seem to be saying that this is what Israel is doing, and that any attempt to stop Israel doing this is somehow scandalous and must be stopped.
"So your argument is that it is outrageous that NGOs are trying to interfere with Israel's war crimes?"
I believe you mean Hamas's war crimes. Hamas is trying to starve its own citizens by stealing their food. The NGO will be helping Hamas. Israel is trying to prevent the support of more war crimes.
It's like the people who send food to the Nazis running the camps.
How does this: "The NGO will be helping Hamas." follow from this: "Hamas is trying to starve its own citizens by stealing their food."?
The easier it is to bring food into Gaza, the harder it is for Hamas to steal it all. Makes you wonder why the IDF keeps blocking food transport at the land border...
Martin, The charge of starvation of Gazans is a lie. There is plenty of food that has been delivered to Gaza. If anyone is guilty, it is Hamas that steals food to sell at black market prcies to buy weapons.
Why would black market prices be higher than any other prices if there is plenty of food?
Because Hamas is stealing the plenty of food, of course. No matter how much you supply, it's going to be expensive if it has to go through Hamas to reach anybody.
So the solution to that problem is to drone-attack an NGO who are trying to bring food to the people of Gaza, how?
What kind of drone attack was it? Did they fire missiles? Perhaps they dropped some cluster bombs.
Oh wait, they made loud noises.
I would still like somebody to opine on which weighed more; the people on the small sailboat, or the “aid” they were supposedly delivering?
Any particular reason they made a big production of leaving from Spain instead of quietly departing from the east coast of Italy?
I have a thought that is from left field (or is right?). Maybe, possibly it was all a publicity stunt and they had no intention or expectation of reaching Gaza. I know Greta is no publicity whore. I mean she has been so earnest since she was in diapers.
Nahh Martin. You would never fall for that, right?
"Oh wait, they made loud noises."
Did "they" even do that? The organizers earlier said they were "attacked" when it was one of their own misfiring of a flare gun.
This 'when has sound ever hurt anyone' push is super dumb.
I don't know the specifics of sound bombs, and it seems neither do you. But I do know sonic weapons can sure as fuck be lethal. Or maiming.
Were they, though?
If they were you have a point.
BTW sound bomb was not meant to be taken seriously. Jeez.
Still nothing on how much aid that small boat was carrying. Or why they chose to go around Italy instead of taking the shortest route from Europe.
Off point and you know it. You are just trying to deflect from your slander of Israel.
That is correct; eurotrash is an antisemite.
I’m sure Hamas’ hands are dirty but it’s incredible to think Israel’s are clean here. There’s a certain type of conservative who is always doubtful of government motives and efficiency except when it comes to Israel.
I don't think they're clean on any absolute scale. I think they're about as clean as is survivable in that really nasty neighborhood, and the people who want them a lot cleaner? Don't much care if they survive.
Everyone criticizing Israel’s conduct doesn’t care if they all die?
Israel should simply NUKE GAZA -- they won't be accused of anything they aren't already accused of, and it would END this bullshyte.
Name one country that has fed the population of a country they are in a shooting war with. So just kill them all and actually have done what Israel is accused of having done.
"Israel should simply NUKE GAZA -- they won't be accused of anything they aren't already accused of, and it would END this bullshyte."
Ed, have you thought that out very carefully?
According to Wikipedia, the Gaza Strip is 41 kilometres (25 miles) long, from 6 to 12 km (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide, and has a total area of 365 km2 (141 sq mi). Winds typically blow from west to east. Nuclear radiation and fallout don't recognize political boundaries.
My favorite was last month when Israel bombed little Palestinian boats in the surf trying to catch fish.
I’m guessing your source is The Palestinian Information Center and republished by the journo giant +972 Magazine as that’s the only sources I could find.
Poor little gullible lokie. Everybody is laughing at you and you can’t figure out why.
LOL There is no evidence it happened, let alone done by Israel, other than a self serving statement by the pro-Hamas organizers.
I wonder if the new defence alliance between Saudi and the nuclear power Pakistan had anything to do with the recent Israeli attack on Qatar. (And the unwillingness or inability of the US to prevent it.) Wikipedia certainly seems to think so. Actions have consequences...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Mutual_Defence_Agreement
"Actions have consequences..."
You really think that the Saudis are going to rely on Pakistan? Too dumb even for you.
No, I don't think the Saudis are going to rely on Pakistan. But I don't think they're going to rely on the US either. That station is passed about three presidential elections ago.
Meanwhile, Trump just announced another shakedown of ABC. He's not even pretending it's anything else.
I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled! Something happened between then and now because his audience is GONE, and his “talent” was never there. Why would they want someone back who does so poorly, who’s not funny, and who puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE. He is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution. I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings.
So Cal Raleigh or Aaron Judge for AL MVP?
Judge is leading the league in BA .325 and fWAR. 9.2, and has 49 HR and 105 RBI, .451 OBP.
Raleigh is leading the league in HR at 58, RBI 121 and has already broken the all time HR record for catchers, and his fWAR 8.8, but his BA is only .247, OBP .360.
Difference to me is Raleigh is an top notch defensive catcher too, while Judge is an adequate RF.
That kind of production from a catcher is just mind boggling.
I agree I think there’s a strong case for Raleigh.
"Batting Average"??? what a worthless stat. Rod Carew hit .328 for a Career, Hank Aaron .308. OPS tells the story, Hammerin' Hank's was .928, Carew's .822 Cal Raleigh's this year is .945, pretty amazing with the pitching they face these days.
If it were based on OPS Judge would run away with it.
But a RF is almost always going to be a plus offensive player, Catcher is the most critical defensive player, just as an example the Yankees everyday catcher has a .495 ops, but he is getting most of the reps behind the plate because he is so much better defensively than his backup.
That's why Buster Posey is in the hall of fame with a 12 year career, less than 200hr, and a 302 career batting average, if he did that at RF, even with plus defense he would be lucky if he has a bobblehead day.
rbi's and runs scored are what matters. Go with Raleigh
"So Cal Raleigh or Aaron Judge for AL MVP?"
Jose Ramirez
Starting in the 2026 season, Major League Baseball players will be able to challenge called balls and strikes in regular and postseason games for the first time.
The widely expected adoption of the challenge system — which is powered by baseball's automated strike zone, known as ABS — was announced Tuesday after years of testing in the minor leagues and a major-league debut this year in spring training and the All-Star Game.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/23/nx-s1-5551259/mlb-will-allow-players-to-challenge-balls-and-strikes-starting-in-2026
Next up, litigants in the Supreme Court will be able to challenge the Roberts Court's calling of balls and strikes & a system of instant replay and computerized analysis will determine who is right.
Some cases will also be determined on the shadow docket via a "ghost" litigant to speed things along.
It was noted by Gary Cohen on the Mets broadcast last night that Cubs rookie 3b Matt Shaw missed Sunday’s game to attend the Charlie Kirk thing. Gary couldn’t remember any player taking leave during the season, especially a playoff run, for anything other than bereavement or paternity, and neither can I.
So you don't understand what "Bereavement" means. But you're right, he should have done like the NFL the weekend after JFK was killed, just play.
Bereavement leave is paid or unpaid time off for employees to grieve and heal after the death of a loved one.
And????
I think Zeile's concern for transparency had some merit.
The player responded that he is a friend and noted Kirk's widow asked him to come.
I would be somewhat surprised if a player wasn't given a pass by the team to go to a funeral at some point, who was a close friend of the deceased, even if not technically qualified.
The Cubs are not in a desperate playoff race like various other teams. Their spot is basically set. He's not a starting pitcher or key reliever. I can see some fans being upset. Others? Probably not.
“The Cubs are not in a desperate playoff race like various other teams. Their spot is basically set.”
After last nights loss the Cubs are only 1.5 games ahead of the padres for the top wild card. The top wild card gets to play all three first round playoff games at home.
Yes, them losing last night made it more tight, though they lost with him there. It still isn't that desperate.
"Charlie Kirk thing"
Memorial service,
No quotes from Shaw implying he is also a bad man? You're slipping.
“implying he is also a bad man”
Why would I do that? I’m not a cubs fan.
Good move, but is it that hard to put a camera on the Foul(actually in Fair territory, but "Fair Pole" just sounds wrong) Poles????
And a boring game will become even more boring.
These delays should be minimal, don’t you watch tennis?
If the system is so great why have umpires behind the plate?
I agree. Balls and strikes should be called by ABS with humans as a backup.
Just wait.
However, they still need to man safe/out calls at home.
I envision a visor on their face mask (not the COVID kind) with a heads up display. They see the same rectangle we see on TV. Instant 99.9% correct calls.
I do watch once in a while. Tennis has a lots of action. Baseball is only matched by cricket as the most boring sport in the Englush speaking world.
Nico — That is sort of right in run-of-the-season games. What astounds me is how it happens that the same format which passes so sleepily all season generates giant pitch-by-pitch tension during playoff baseball.
I think folks who don't feel that tension are folks who don't understand the game. Playing series of limited length changes the character of the game, and not infrequently changes the management decisions and the on-field tactics. It's kind of like the difference between limit poker and no-limit poker. Or the difference between cafe backgammon and tournament backgammon.
Having noted that, it occurs to me that a revised baseball standings system might work wonders. Structure standings only on the basis of team-against-team whole-season outcomes. One standings win or loss for whatever aggregate result teams get against each opponent they play. That might prove more continuously interesting and exciting than counting each game individually to determine standings. It would make every play in every series matter almost as much as it does in post-season play.
I can see the intrigue. You’re basically talking about run differential, right?
If so, I can see a few problems. I don’t really like the fact a team may face a spot starter called up and scores 10 runs and pitches a shutout and that counteracts 10 one-run losses. Maybe such games balance themselves out over a season between most teams; the good ones anyway. It seems odd to equate ten games to one.
Another problem is my longtime argument against Pete Rose. It’s not that he bet on his own team. It’s that he likely treated the games he bet on as the 7th game of the WS. Regardless of how it affects the longterm success of the other 161 games. I bet they could find a balance, but isn’t that what they’re doing now?
It seems you have two concerns. Making every game more meaningful (addressed above) and a different method of determining the best teams.
I wouldn’t mind a European style format. A balanced schedule where everybody plays everybody else a set number of times. I don’t think there is much appetite for a 174 game schedule—6 games against the other 29 teams although it is perfect for everything including travel. Except for the four teams who might play on the “gsmes of the week” on Monday Night Baseball (I can hear underwood already). Weird having an off day in the middle of a series.
I don’t know how spread out the standings would be, but I can imagine aggregate scoring playing a larger part at the top. How close are the division leaders as of now? Or the top two teams in a strong division.
It’s a departure to be sure.
Not run differential. Wins in each series. A won series counts one point in the standings.
Also, I reckon wins in close games better tests of team quality than wins in blowouts. But I think every win should count the same to determine the outcome of a team series.
Stephan, You are correct that post-season games do generate a level of tension that in-season games don't. Perhaps a restructuring of records keeping would generate more interest, but baseball in particular is so fixated on statistics that fans might protest.
Nico, you are right to think about fans and statistics. But I do not think what I proposed would have notable effects on how the most important statistics—the records of individual players—would be recorded. Nor do I think the values themselves would much change. But the way managers used stats in decision making would change somewhat, and likely affect player opportunities here and there.
On a different baseball topic…A gripe
As a life long Ranger fan only one team has been royally screwed ever since they went to four divisions. There are now two teams since the 15-15 leagues.
The Rangers for years had three of the four teams in their division in a two hour later time zone. It killed TV revenue because of how few people stayed up until 12:30am to watch the the 3 1/2 hour games.
At least we now have another team in our time zone and games are shorter, but it still sucks.
They tested it during Spring Training and, as I recall, during the All-Star Game. It was a minimal delay.
What were the challenge rules, and do they apply alike all the time to the offense and the defense?
This year, the Supreme Court unanimouslyupheld the ban, which TikTok had challenged on First Amendment grounds. The law was supposed to go into effect on Jan. 19. President-elect Donald Trump hadfiled an amicus brief asking the high court to grant him flexibility to negotiate a diplomatic solution. The justices refused. That left one loophole in the law: “The President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days” if there was “in place” a “binding legal agreement” for ByteDance’s divestiture.
Yet 247 days (and counting) after the deadline to close it, TikTok keeps ticking along despite the lack of a binding agreement. Ignoring the law, Trump has granted four extensions — three more than legally allowed — to keep the app in business.
This is quite a turnaround for a president who had tried to ban TikTok on national security grounds in 2020, writing in an executive order that the app “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information” and that it “reportedly censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems politically sensitive.”
More recently Trump has become convinced of TikTok’s utility as a platform for reaching young voters. (“It helped me win the election in a landslide,” Trump, who won less than 50 percent of the popular vote in November,said on Friday.) The White House has opened its own TikTok account, making a mockery of the congressional ban.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/23/trump-tiktok-algorith-crony-capitalism/
Odd, given that Trump is normally such a stickler for consistency.
Who was President on Jan. 19?
One day vs 246! That’s some pathetic whataboutism.
Guess FJB was too busy signing pardons.
246 of them maybe, not many!
I have been assured that the US Federal government is big enough to do more than one thing at a time. Especially when the main thing is running a stack of papers through the autopen.
Less than a day, actually. Because the ban did actually go into effect.
"TikTok shuts down in the United States hours ahead of a ban" - https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/18/business/trump-tiktok-ban/index.html.
It was only when (then President-Elect) Trump announced his 75 day extension that TikTok itself came back and it would be a bit longer before the App Stores restored it too. If I remember correctly, the app proper came back part the way through Sunday was it? So there was in theory a few hours where Biden could have begun enforcement action?
Indeed. As usual, the MAGA crowd either operates in delusion or just complete disregard of the truth. When Biden was President, TikTok shut down because that was the law. When Trump announced he wasn't going to enforce the law, TikTok fired the servers back up.
But yeah, let's try to pretend that it's actually Biden who let TikTok flout the law.
As I pointed out a few days ago, the "enforce the law" people on immigration are conspicuously silent here.
Which just goes to show how little they actually care about enforcing the law.
Sadiq Khan to ITV London on Donald Trump’s comments about him to the UN:
“I think I’ve got squatters right for the amount of time I’ve spent in Donald Trump’s head. I’m just hoping he doesn’t send me an invoice for all the time I’ve spent there.”
Khan gets a mention from Trump and it goes to his head.
Whose head? They asked Khan about it on TV, so it's not like he mentioned Trump unprompted. Trump, on the other hand, seems obsessed with seeing a muslim who is a successful mayor of a succesful city.
Charlie Kirk thought the mayor of a major city (he mentioned both London and New York) being Muslim was problematic because they were Muslim. Religious bigotry is apparently a theme in MAGAland.
Not enough Wrath, Khan
Well, he’s nothing if not original.
I’m betting he thought he was being clever. Maybe that particular cliche that has been around for quite a while stateside never made it across the pond.
President Trump on Tuesday shifted his position on whether Ukraine should hold out for all the territory seized by Russia, saying on social media that he thinks Ukraine is in a position to win it all back.
It's a reversal from his long-held position that Kyiv would need to give up some of its territory to Moscow to end the war – such as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/23/nx-s1-5551269/trump-ukraine-territory
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we all together win the presidency, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled. The war is going to be settled. I’ll get them both – I know Zelensky, I know Putin, it’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, ‘That’s such a boast.’ It will be done very quickly.” Trump, PA rally July 2023
"Shifted his position" seems a bit strong. Let's see what he says tomorrow. This just looked like another example of "Trump echos what he just heard from the person he spoke to 5 minutes ago" to me.
Next headline;
Trump Stays Tied to Previous Policy Among Shifting Realities
To some groups of people no matter what Trump says or does he is immediately wrong. There are others who are the opposite. They should both be ignored because they must constantly shift what is right/wrong according to Trump’s whims.
Trump, in his ramblings, takes all positions. MAGA picks whatever's convenient at the moment and pretends that's the 100% clear position and always has been.
Or that it's 'strategic ambiguity'
It's none of that. It's just ambiguity. And given our position, the world suffers for it.
...and in Green Energy news: That great raptor air fryer, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California, has shut down after $2.2 billion was pissed away and countless birds fried in mid flight. https://nypost.com/2025/09/23/us-news/2-2-billion-ivanpah-solar-facility-in-california-turned-off-after-years-of-wasted-money/
Damn that's crazy...so how about releasing them Epstein Files?
The interesting stuff has come, and will probably continue to come from Epstein's estate.
as the market changed, it couldn’t compete with newer and less expensive forms of creating solar power.
While we're at it, I'll match your one solar plant closure with 15 coal-fired plans closing this year:
https://ieefa.org/resources/drumbeat-coal-plant-closures-continue-2025
"as the market changed, it couldn’t compete with newer and less expensive forms of creating solar power."
Which themselves can't compete with other sources of power unless heavily subsidized.
When I say that, of course, I'm comparing the cost to generate consistently available power, not the cost to have power show up when it feels like it. One of the major subsidies solar enjoys is getting to free ride on other sources of power for backup when the sun goes down.
That's not a subsidy any more than its a subsidy on fresh peas when I buy some frozen ones knowing that I might need some in a pinch and not want to run to the supermarket.
Of course it's a goddamn subsidy, unless you want to have frequent random blackouts.
This is the sort of crap you regularly get from 'renewable' fanatics: Being told that they don't HAVE to deliver the power when it's wanted, we should just get used to using it when it shows up.
Subsidies are a completely ordinary R&D funding method.
MAGA hates it only for wind and solar. Nuclear subsidies are cool. As are oil and coal subsidies.
These are special because Trump hates so the MAGA tools will deploy all the double standards.
It's an additional cost.
What do you think the market would be like for a solar car that only runs when the sun is shining?
It's completely impractical without sufficient battery battery backup, which would cost 10x what the solar panels for the car would cost, or a internal combustion engine that would require its own transmission and drive train, which would also double the cost.
What solar is doing to the utilities, under regulatory duress, is like passing a law saying you can only buy solar cars then you have to pay for the improvements to make the car practical.
I'm not sure "additional cost" is right either. Solar power has limitations. It only gets produced during the day and is generally less reliable than nuclear or fossil fuel generated power. But utility companies know this already. They take advantage of cheaper solar electricity when it's available and make use of other sources when its not. It's true that the result is a blended cost that is higher than if you were just using solar when the sun was strong, but on the other hand if you took out all of the solar that blended cost would be higher than if you kept it in. So back to Brett's point, it would be just as reasonable to say that solar is subsidizing the cost of fossil fuels as vice versa. In reality, both are part of a mix that utility companies use to get the best overall cost.
It is also true that in some cases solar power is directly subsidized, and that is part of the reason why utility companies use it. But they'd be pretty stupid not to, no?
Finally, if you look at the link I provided above, the regulatory duress is actually coming from the Trump administration trying to force electricity companies to keep their expensive coal-fired power plants open.
The solution is no solar subsidies, or mandates, then we can see clearly what the economic case is.
Let the market decide, not the bureaucracy.
Maybe?
Solar subsidies actually make a really good case for the value of subsidies for emerging technologies. A couple of decades ago, solar was way more expensive than fossil fuels. Subsidies helped create enough of a market to encourage innovation and vastly decrease prices.
At some point, solar definitely should be left to compete with (unsubsidized) fossil fuels. Not sure if that's now or not, but it would be interesting to see data-driven arguments one way or the other.
There is no "maybe" about it. The simplest reason is the one you stated above: "Solar power has limitations. It only gets produced during the day..." In smaller installations you might get by with some kind of battery back-up (also expensive and probably subsidized) but it will never ever work at grid scale.
Of there were a case for solar subsidies it was 20 years ago, and if has long since ended.
Now its counterproductive because solar technology is not the bottleneck, its storage technology.
20 years is not a lot of time in R&D for an emerging tech!
Been having my office gather some stories on this, actually. -Deep learning took 50 years to cook. -Pharma estimates about 10-15 years on average, which means plenty take longer. And plenty fail. -20 years and graphene is just now beginning to find private utility https://www.science.org/content/article/twenty-years-after-its-discovery-graphene-finally-living-hype
Harnessing private markets via subsidies is very smart.
Please bear in mind that every ounce of pollution fossil fuel plants dump is also a subsidy - not from government, but from the general public.
Closing coal fired plants was and is a big mistake. They provide a reliable base load capability and are not subject to supply chain disruption.
I think Jimmy Kimmel did a good job with his returning monologue, including citing another First Amendment threat from the Administration. This is so even if someone won't watch him on a regular basis. As I have not.
He directed attention to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s recent demand that journalists pledge not to release any unauthorized information. “They want to pick and choose what the news is,” said Kimmel. “I know that’s not as interesting as muzzling a comedian but it’s so important to have a free press, and it’s nuts we’re not paying more attention to it.”
He has a certain sincerity about things that is charming. I saw it when he talked about health care in the past. Kimmel has a certain flavor as someone from the neighborhood who did good.
Kimmel complimented some people on the right for supporting free speech while noting some things they support makes him sick. He honored Kirk's widow for forgiving the killer. You can find the whole thing on YouTube if your local affiliate still is blocking him.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/jimmy-kimmel-live-return-monologue-critic-analysis-1236378480/
So, I gather he did eventually get around to apologizing?
Brett still yearns for even a tiny victory.
You yearn to never concede anything, even when somebody on your side acts obnoxious or outright lies.
Looking into it, no, he didn't really apologize.
Because being Jimmy Kimmelmann means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is he supposed to say he’s sorry to? The MAGAns he said were desperately trying to paint the shooter as not one of them?
Yeah, pretty much, since the shooter genuinely wasn't one of them, and Kimmel was just pretending he was.
So he should apologize about being wrong about a group?
I would think a routine conspiracy theorist like yourself would see that as a glass houses moment.
Yes, he should apologize about being deliberately wrong about a group.
That rule would encapsulate a very wide swath of your sources. Jumping to conclusions is an essential element of conspiracy theorists.
But he wasn't wrong about a group. If you interpret what he said in the most negative way possible, he was wrong about the shooter. The only thing he said about a group — i.e., MAGA — is that they were trying to distance themselves from him. Which was in fact true.
the shooter genuinely wasn't one of them, and Kimmel was just pretending he was.
No he wasn't. Observing that Trumpists are working very hard to claim that person X isn't one of them isn't an accusation about person X, it's only an accusation about Trumpists.
Trumpists didn't have to work very hard at all to claim that person X wasn't one of them, is the point, because, factually, he wasn't one of them, and that was obvious almost from the start.
"You have to work very hard to claim that X isn't true!" is just a way of lying, when the objective fact is that X isn't true, and hardly any work at all is needed to demonstrate it.
Like, "Jews are working very hard to claim that they're not baking the blood of Christian babies into their matzohs." You could say, "That's not accusing Jews of doing anything but denying it! And they are, aren't they?" but nobody would be fooled.
It was obvious to many that he was trans. Were they blood libeling trans persons and should they apologize?
Yeah, actually. The one trans guy involved turned out to be more reasonable than his nutcase boyfriend.
Brett, I don't think observing that Jews deny historical accusations of blood libel -- even if they are working very hard at such denial -- is an accusation that the blood libel is in fact true. That is simply not a useful analogy for you -- the vehemence of the denial is because of the falsity of the libel.
What would Kimmel have to apologise for?
Not being a blind admirer of Charlie Kirk, apparently.
It's hardly contrarianism to think this Kimmel thing is a travesty of administrative authoritarianism. I also don't much care for the subsequent MAGA bullshit festival, where a lot of folks here claimed it was actually an unrelated marketing decision, and not what it looks like.
So I don't know why you think it's a reflex when I note your standing on whether Kimmel apologized is some petty tribal attempt to eke out a bit of dignity from the victim here in the face of the admin overplaying it's anti-speech proclivities.
So I don't know why you think it's a reflex when I note your standing on whether Kimmel apologized is some petty tribal attempt to eke out a bit of dignity from the victim here in the face of the admin overplaying it's anti-speech proclivities
I just won the blackout round in SarcBingo in a single sentence!
No, it wasn’t market pressure. It was Kimmel refusing to do what Iger asked and even wanting to double down.
But Trump
You got any evidence Iger asked Kimmel anything?
That's yet a new 'it's not what it looks like' attempt I've not seen before.
Again, complete fiction.
It’s been widely reported. If it’s fiction, it’s not my fiction. Of course you don’t believe anything you don’t want.
That’s one way to live. Not my choice, but you be you.
Not being a shitposter, I Googled before I called you out. I did not see any reporting on Iger asking Kimmel to do anything before Kimmel was totally-not-fired.
Do you have a link?
More like Iger didn’t approve of Kimmel’s planned response, fearing it would exacerbate the uproar over Kimmel’s lie. Hence, he made the decision to yank the show based on Kimmel’s own planned speech.
“Kimmel had planned to address Carr’s comments on his show Wednesday night, according to people familiar with the matter. Before his on-air appearance, Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment, spoke to the host about his plan, the people said. After the conversation between Kimmel and Walden, she and other senior executives thought that the star’s approach could make the situation worse, people familiar with their conversations said. Executives also discussed staff safety, including threatening emails staff on Kimmel’s show had received after Carr’s remarks and the posting of some of their personal information online, the people said. Walden huddled with her team and Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger before the two executives decided to temporarily take “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air, the people said. She then informed Kimmel of the decision. A person close to the show said that Kimmel was planning to say that his words were being purposefully twisted by some members of the Make America Great Again movement.”
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-decision-behind-the-scenes-e1ecbbf2
Your new goalpost of a story doesn't say Iger didn’t approve of Kimmel’s planned response.
It also doesn't say Iger asked Kimmel to do anything even at this new part of the timeline.
Yes Sarcasr0, Iger was so thrilled with Kimmel’s planned response that he…yanked the show. Give it up.
I made no claims Iger asked/told Kimmel to do anything.
First, my comments were about how your excerpt applied to the thesis of those in the thread above.
Second, you seem to have the upshot completely wrong. There's no indication from the excerpt above that the monologue was Iger's issue (vs., say the threats from the administration).
We do know he's did a 180 pretty quick, so whatever he felt it was flexible.
I intentionally broke from the thread above (“more like…”).
After the conversation between Kimmel and Walden, she and other senior executives thought that the star’s approach could make the situation worse […] Walden huddled with her team and Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger before the two executives decided to temporarily take “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air
The monologue was the issue. You can argue Iger was concerned about administration backlash, revulsion of the audience, antagonism of affiliates, etc. But it’s clear Kimmel’s monologue drove Iger’s decision.
It was not widely reported. It was widely discussed, yes. But — and here's why MAGA is so bad at media literacy — a bunch of social media accounts asserting something is not the same thing as the thing being reported. One story in a legitimate media outlet is worth an infinite number of tweets.
Kimmel addressed the one thing he was rightly criticized for:
I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it. I still do. Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both, and for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there's a good chance I'd have felt the same way. I have many friends and family members on the other side who I love and remain close to, even though we don't agree on politics at all. I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution and it isn't.
“I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone.”
I only implied it was MAGA for shits and giggles. I wouldn’t do that for like real real.
"implied"
You mean "said" of course.
Implied! A reasonable conclusion, but not necessarily what Kimmel intended: "Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group [...] But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear."
Um, no. Even if the guy was a 'member' of MAGA (again, in quotes because there are no members), that still wouldn't mean that he "represents" MAGA.
No. He did not imply the killer represented MAGA.
That's just a really stupid thing to say even if, as DMN points out below, he was a Trump supporter.
And he didn't represent "the Left" either.
Apologizing to whom for what?
For being a lying sack of shit? Although, I can see why you would be reticent about thinking that's something someone ought to apologize for.
There is no way what Kimmel said could be a lie. Even assuming for the sake of argument Kimmel unequivocally said Robinson was a member of the MAGA gang, the worst you could say his claim was made without evidence. The Discord chats which implied Robinson was motivated by Kirk's perceived hate against trans people was released to the public the day after Kimmel's monologue.
Even assuming for the sake of argument Kimmel unequivocally said Robinson was a member of the MAGA gang
LOL! And what exactly is it that you think he meant by, "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"? And you can even ignore the fact that there was no "desperate attempt" by anyone to characterize the shooter as "anything other than one of [MAGA]". The evidence that came out did that all on its own.
the worst you could say his claim was made without evidence
You mean...not only without any supporting evidence, but also contrary to the evidence that was (and still is) available. Yeah, that's called a "lie".
And what exactly is it that you think he meant by, "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"?
It could be limited to Kimmel's opinion about what the "MAGA gang" tried to do without any implication about Robinson himself. Or in addition, it could be an insinuation that Robinson was a member of the MAGA gang. Either interpretation is reasonable. Kimmel made it clear last night he intended the former.
And you can even ignore the fact that there was no "desperate attempt" by anyone to characterize the shooter as "anything other than one of [MAGA]"
That's strictly an opinion.
You mean...not only without any supporting evidence, but also contrary to the evidence that was (and still is) available.
The only piece of evidence that could lend credence to the argument that the latter interpretation above was a lie is the Discord chat between Robinson and his roommate. But as I already noted, that record was made public the day after Kimmel's monologue.
It could be limited to Kimmel's opinion about what the "MAGA gang" tried to do without any implication about Robinson himself.
An interpretation that requires weapons-grade levels of naïve stupidity.
Kimmel made it clear last night he intended the former.
LOL! I'm sure that was completely sincere and had nothing at all to do with facing the cancellation of his show.
The only piece of evidence that could lend credence to the argument that the latter interpretation above was a lie is the Discord chat between Robinson and his roommate.
Oh, bullshit. The romantic relationship between the shooter and his roommate had been made public well before Kimmel's propaganda exercise.
Motes and beams again. Do you really care about people who lie? Why should anyone take you seriously here?
“ So, I gather he did eventually get around to apologizing”
Apologizing for what? And to whom?
It’s still incomprehensible what could have offended anyone so much that they would say, “Government censorship it authoritarian and dangerous to a free society, but that was so clearly over the line …”. There just wasn’t anything particularly offensive in the monologue that got him targeted.
He wasn't on in my neck of the nape, but I'm in that Backwater of Seattle this week.
In other news, Democrats are threatening to shut down the government.
A relatively clean continuing resolution passed the House. It simply funds the government at the current levels for a few months. But in the Senate, a clean bill to fund the government at current levels was fillibustered by the Democrats.
They demanded adding more than a trillion dollars worth of spending as the cost to keep the government open for a couple months. As the minority party....
The general rule of reporting on government shutdowns is that it is ALWAYS the Republicans' fault. Either they're making demands, or not giving into them. Doesn't matter who's doing the filibuster.
Be interesting to see if they can make that fly this time around.
Also, I suspect today's GOP is going to be a little less inclined to cave at the moment of maximum damage, before too many people notice that the government shutting down isn't that awful. And Trump isn't going to have much tolerance for bureaucrats resorting to the Washington Monument ploy.
But, we'll see.
Confirmed. I can only remember as far back as H.W. As a political neophyte I distinctly remember thinking “why is it his fault?” The answer appeared to be Dems controlled both houses of the legislature and George was digging his obstructionist heels in because of “read my lips.” Seemed reasonable at the time.
Fast forward and the next shutdown was surely Clinton’s fault because Republicans had control of both houses. Right?
Not so fast there whippersnapper. Clinton was president and the Republicans refused to negotiate. Wait…huh? The kicker is a few years later with another shutdown looming Clinton signed the Republicans budget. Even today you can read comments here on this blog how “Clinton” was the last president to balance the budget. No, he signed Congress’ budget. His budget wasn’t balanced.
He also pulled a Samual Clemens. “The death of big government’s demise is greatly exaggerated.”
1. Trump's the one that just cancelled a meeting, and the House GOP cancelled votes Monday and Tuesday. Your blame game doesn't comport with recent events. Or with Trump's bloviating, if you want to check his Truth Social.
2. Part of the issue is the GOP did a bunch of lying last go-round about foreign aid and public media. I mean Schumer's a dipshit for believing them, but the GOP made a choice there.
3. The Dems do want a fight - their opinion polling has been in the toilet because of how supine they've been. In a rare show of political instincts, the issue they chose to contend is cuts to Medicaid and the ACA subsidies...the Dems for once chose their issue well. Hence your not getting into it with 'more than a trillion dollars worth of spending.'
I don't much want to be furloughed, but I also see how we got here, and it's not all Dems all the time.
1. Senate rejects House-passed CR to fund government through Nov. 21 https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2025-09-19-senate-rejects-house-passed-cr-fund-government-through-nov-21
2. It's a CR. Vote on the bill.
3." The Dems do want a fight"
Shutting down the government if you (as the minority party) don't get an extra trillion in funding? On a 2 month funding bill? That's absurd. What next? "Unless you impeach Trump and put AOC in as President, we'll shut down the government with our fillibuster!"
Do you think it has to do with the rescissions thing?
Which isn't in the bill.
I mean the experience of it.
They're big boys and girls. They should vote for what is in the bill.
If they get their tighties whities in a twist over something that isn't on the table, and stamp their feet saying "you were mean to me earlier I'm not doing anything, even if it is my job!"...
Maybe they should step down.
I thought you liked federal government shutdowns?
It's a CR. Vote on the bill.
Trenchant argument.
Of course it's not in the bill; that's the point of rescissions: to retroactively eliminate appropriations. The GOP did that with the previous CR: reached an agreement with the Dems to keep funding things, and then after that bill was approved and enacted, cut spending for things the Dems wanted and that had been agreed to. So why would Dems agree to a CR now?
Then Dems can fillibuster the rescissions bill. It makes no sense to fillibuster the CR.
Rescission bills are not subject to Senate filibusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission_bill
The truly odd thing is that for decades, neither party has threatened to go nuclear for continuing resolutions to fund the government.
Nuclear for judicial nominees, nuclear for Supreme Court appointments, nuclear for cabinet appointments, but not for continuing resolutions to fund the government.
It would not surprise me at all to see the Senate eliminate the filibuster for CRs in 2025.
They may, depending how long it goes on.
I expect the filibuster to be gone entirely by the end of the decade.
The "nuclear option" really is kind of emblematic of the modern federal government, though, isn't it? You'd think it consisted of voting to change the Senate rules.
Nope!
The Senate rules remain unchanged. "The nuclear option" consists somebody raising a point of order, the Senate parliamentarian explaining the rules, and the Senate over-riding the parliamentarian, voting that they don't mean that.
Mind you, they continue to SAY 'that', whatever 'that' might happen to be. The Senate has simply voted by a simple majority vote that they will no longer interpret them as meaning what they continue to SAY.
If it’s going to happen, I hope the Republicans are proactive. They keep reacting to what Dems do.
During W. Republicans threatened to use the nuclear options on judges. Dems, with their cheerleaders in MSM, put on the un-American full court press. Dole capitulated and compromised with the Dems. A few years later the Dems, once again with their corner men, branded the Republicans as obstructionists re Obama judges. They had no desire nor pressure to compromise and they didn’t.
Frankly, Dole "capitulated" makes it sound too passive. That guy wasn't gutless, he was playing for the opposing team half the time.
As always, Brett fails to understand the concept of negotiation and compromise. He was a staunch conservative the whole time.
During W. Republicans threatened to use the nuclear options on judges. Dems, with their cheerleaders in MSM, put on the un-American full court press. Dole capitulated and compromised with the Dems.
TF? Dole retired from the senate 5 years before W became president.
Whoever the fuck was the majority leader at the time capitulated. It is possible to correct an honest mistake without being a jackass. I promise it is. It’s not hard to forget Frist
The point is Republicans came to the table when they had the power. The dems just extended their power. Typical.
This is something asymmetric between the left and right.
The right fucking hates compromise. You can claim the left demonizes you all you want, but they're willing to negotiate (and thus take you to be in at least some good faith.) And Dem voters continue to push for negotiation and compromise.
Meanwhile, you lot *reach back decades* to get mad at compromises from long ago. ---- It is fundamentally corrosive to a republic for one side to hate and distrust the other side so much they can't talk, only dominate.
They are now because they aren’t in power. Big surprise.
Should have told Reid that about 15 years ago. SCOTUS might not be 6-3. LOL!!!
No, though.
The left's been reaching across the aisle since I started paying attention, 'round about the Obama Admin.
It's the difference between Rush 'libs are demons and abortion is their sacrament' Limbaugh and John 'the conservatives are kings of bullshit mountain' Stewart.
The right's political culture has been steeped in demonization for decades. The left's got some of that, but also West Wing-style pragmatic hope, and Stewart-style 'we're the only adults in the room' exasperation.
Plenty of symmetries on the fringe, but look at the whole party support structure and the right's been working on distrust for our republic for a long while.
You haven’t been paying very close attention then.
I gave you the perfect example when Republicans had the Senate, House, and Prez. They could have used the nuclear option and pushed through all of W’s nominations. They compromised and shelved a handful of nominees to get many through.
A few years later when Dems had full control they wouldn’t compromise and used the nuclear option to get all of Obama’s nominees through.
You got a specific example rather than your feelz?
Now you're onto a new thesis.
I'm not talking about maximal norms-breaking. I'm talking about refusal to compromise.
Different things, different timelines.
when Dems had full control they wouldn’t compromise and used the nuclear option to get all of Obama’s nominees through First, that was at a point where McConnel had instituted a policy of letting no nominees through. No compromises!
Second, Obama famously did not fill the vacancies in the lower courts.
You got a specific example rather than your feelz? _Did you forget how we got into this conversation? -Merrick Garland. -Every immigration bill this century has had the GOP scuttle it when a subset of them were getting to a compromise with the Dems. -The ACA. Obama kept coming to the table; the GOP kept pulling the rug and mocking him for it. -The breakdown of budget negotiations since Bush.
Yuge projections on your part, Sarcastr0. Especially using “elections have consequences” Obama as an example.
No, both major parties have used corrosive tactics in their attempts to “win” - and ultimately the country is worse for it. Impugning the motives of your political opponents has become a blood sport, one you’ve gladly adopted.
It's telling how bad y'all are at tracking my thesis.
I'm saying the GOP has a principle against compromise and the Democrats do not.
You want some kind of broad good-guys/bad-guys childlike thing. Or at least you want me to be pushing it. My thesis is much more limited.
I'm not saying otherwise the Dems are angels who love rules and decorum. I'm not saying the GOP did maximal rulebreaking before Trump.
No, I understand your thesis. It’s just total bunk propped up by highly selective anecdotes.
The behaviors of Obama and contemporaneous Democrats completely puncture it. Again, that’s not unique to them or their party; it just undermines your assertion.
Ah yes, Obama never met with the GOP to try and find common ground. And the GOP never bit that hand he reached out with.
This happened with immigration, budget talks, Iran, and of course the ACA multiple times.
Do you need 60 votes to bring budgetary bills to the floor?
I am not going to bet my mortgage-free home, but I don’t think so. A simple majority is suffice. The CR vote was 46-48. It wasn’t a vote to bring it to the full senate.
Yes. You need 60 votes for Senate cloture on continuing resolutions.
Democrats are threatening to shut down the government
Leaving to one side the question of whether that is even true, good. That's what they're supposed to be doing. Every man and woman of them should be voting the opposite of what the Regime wants on just about anything. If the Regime wants the Democrats to vote in favour of something, they should negotiate and offer concessions. But those concessions had better involve "stop doing fascist shit", and somehow I don't see that happening anytime soon.
"Every man and woman of them should be voting the opposite of what the Regime wants on just about anything"
So when the "Regime" votes to continue funding Ukrainian weapons...it should be opposed?
Isn't that exactly the thought process that allows Trump to get the Democrats to rally around the 20% side of essentially every 80/20 issue?
Both parties, of course, routinely oppose big bills that have some parts that they tend to favor.
Hence my "just about". In hypothetical situations like the one you mention, which bear no resemblance to reality, the Democrats might consider voting in favour.
Yeah, I don't see Democrats ceasing to call everything they disagree with "fascist" any time soon, either.
"Fascist" is old and busted. The new hotness is calling Trump a "communist dictator".
(I look forward to not seeing the accusation that I am nutpicking by quoting someone whose only notable electoral success was as a California senator.)
Wut?
Kamala said something so it’s the right wing talking point d’jour.
How dare they call authoritarian racists fascists! Next thing you know you can't walk around with a Swastika doing the Nazi salute without being called a fascists! What is this country coming to!
Trump added 4T to the deficit.
Liberals: "Free speech is important! How dare Jimmy Kimmel get canceled! How dare you interfere in a free media!"
Also Liberals: Sinclair Broadcasting is choosing not to put Jimmy Kimmel on the air? Perhaps we need to break up that group. Everyone needs to hear Jimmy...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/california-democrat-calls-breaking-up-sinclair-broadcast-group-drawing-rebuke-from-fcc-chair
Antitrust laws are a thing, and it would be nice if someone enforced them. That is not a speech issue. (Though it is, historically, an antifacism issue.)
LOL.. Suddenly "antitrust laws are a thing" that "someone" should enforce.
But only when there's a speech issue the government doesn't like?
Leftists are big-league proponents of prosecutorial discretion, as long as the prosecutors are their people.
...as long as the prosecutors don't take bribes.
I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that amounts to the same thing.
No, all the time. What the government shouldn't do is take bribes (in money or in kind) to look the other way on the antitrust law.
Unrelated, I wonder why Sinclair is still siding with the Regime on Kimmel.
Can a library be bribed? If so, that’s news to me.
“ Unrelated, I wonder why Sinclair is still siding with the Regime on Kimmel.”
Sinclair is owned by and run by hard-core conservatives. They are 100% in the tank for Trump. Did you really think they were offended by the innocuous and mild comments of Jimmy Kimmel? They saw a pretense to provide support to the President and grabbed it with both hands.
When a network affiliate group openly calls for government censorship (something clearly at odds with their business), it’s pretty frightening what that says about American support for free speech.
Nexstar isn’t ideologically aligned with conservatives, like Sinclair, but here is a tiny hint as to why they don’t want to piss off Carr and the FCC: last month, Nexstar announced a $6.2-billion deal to buy TEGNA Inc., which owns 64 other TV stations. Guess who has to approve that merger?
As craven as it is for Nexstar to act like this, it makes perfect sense. The only people who don’t think Trump will punish people who anger him using the power of government are the hopelessly stupid and the hopelessly credulous.
So yeah, they have to kiss the ring or kiss their deal goodbye. So they’re puckering up.
Are you under the wildly incorrect impression that people on the left generally don't like antitrust laws?
Say what you will about the Biden administration, but it was the most aggressive about enforcing antitrust laws in recent memory.
Democratic California state Sen. Scott Wiener
When you gotta travel that far to pick a nut...
A spray-painted bronze statue titled “Best Friends Forever” that depicts President Trump and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein holding hands was placed on the National Mall in front of the U.S. Capitol early Tuesday morning. The work is the latest in a series of politically charged sculptures critical of the president that have been placed in Washington and elsewhere by an anonymous group.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/09/23/trump-epstein-statue-national-mall/
Maybe the same people who planted the "bombs" on Jan. 5/6 2020 or built the stage prop gallows.
The statue has now been removed, despite a permit allowing it to stay there for the rest of the week.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/trump-epstein-statue-removed-national-mall/65-f509c666-6627-447e-9726-e8886b843123
Isn't it just great to live in a country where free speech is so strongly protected? No matter how much the government hates what you're saying, the Constitution protects your right to say it!
Who applied for the permit?
I can't tell. Everytime I click on that link I end up forwarded to the TV station's Youtube channel. I assumed that was just me (or at least some consequence of me being overseas), so I posted the link anyway.
You wouldn't be able to tell even if that wasn't happening, they apparently didn't think you needed to know.
“ Who applied for the permit?”
Why does that matter?
Are you arguing that the government should ignore a valid permit because the President’s long, long friendship with a pedophile is something Trump doesn’t want to be discussed?
Camp Mystic, the girls’ summer camp in Texas where 27 young campers and counselors died in flooding in July, plans to reopen next summer, a decision that has shocked and divided the once tight-knit community of Mystic alumni and parents.
The camp’s owners announced their intentions in two emails sent hours apart on Monday, one to the families of the girls who died, and one to a much broader group of past campers and their families, many of whom remain fiercely loyal to the camp’s leadership.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/23/us/camp-mystic-texas.html
I approve of this decision.
Humans are mortal. We can't just stop doing things whenever somebody dies, or eventually we'll be doing nothing.
OTOH, the camp DOES need to make some changes to protect against similar circumstances in the future. THAT is how people should respond to deaths, not by retreat.
But that's how Camp Crystal Lake managed to spawn a dozen movies, two of which (neither being the last one) have "Final" in the title. Just sayin'.
I think it’s an incredibly tough but understandable decision. Not sure I’d want to send my kid to that camp but the owners gotta make a living.
Dr. Trump - "...women that are pregnant are, you know, would perhaps be forced to use it [Tylenol]...I just want to say, I want to say it like it is, don't take Tylenol. Don't take it. If you just can't -- I mean it's fight like hell not to take it."
Legal analysts are saying that Johnson & Johnson is now wide open to the biggest class action lawsuit in American history from every autistic in the nation. Likely bankrupting the company.
People who scratch their heads at the seemingly bizarre, random targeting of people and things forget that Trump only does things for two reasons: Enrich the Trump Clan or revenge.
Johnson & Johnson was one of the three that made the vaccine. Earlier this year a near $1B grant to Moderna for further mRNA vaccine development was stripped. So that's them taken care of.
So now the only one left standing is Pfizer: the biggest drug company in the world. Will be wild.
"Trump only does things for two reasons: Enrich the Trump Clan or revenge."
I'm pretty sure he does things sometimes just because he actually does like cheeseburgers, you know.
You really need to stop imagining he's a comic book villain. One of his greatest strengths is that his foes are so irrational concerning him.
Just asking questions
One of his greatest strengths is that his foes are so irrational concerning him.
Yes, it's definitely his "foes" and not his supporters who are being irrational.
It can be both. Rationality is in short supply all around. That that was still a stupid thing for Hobie to say about a real person. Real people are a lot more complicated than comic book villains.
You’re not nearly so charitable about leftist figures you disagree with, you ascribe bad, conspiratorial motives to them constantly.
But do I ever say they ONLY have conspiratorial motives? Nobody is so simple they ONLY conspire!
Conspiracies exist, they're a part of life. They don't explain everything, or even most things, but they do explain SOME things, which you'll miss out on understanding if you irrationally assume that conspiracy is never, ever the explanation for anything.
Like, I'd always assumed that the way the media almost instantly adopted the same take on news stories was just some kind flocking behavior, just like minds thinking alike.
Nope, turned out to be an actual conspiracy, Journolist.
Those involved in Journolist were a tiny fraction of “the media.”
You’re saying something wrong about a group again. Apology?
Yes, a very influential tiny fraction.
Who would you have me apologize to? Journolist?
You get that Trump is unusually irrational right?
This isn’t to say we haven’t had dodgy and or dumb national pols before on both sides, but Trump is unusually irrational (say, unpolished or authentic if you like). Unusually irrational things often invoke what might seem like irrational (shock, appalled, anger) responses.
I get that he's not a Vulcan, if that's what you mean. I also get that he's run a multi-billion dollar business empire for many years, that he's twice been elected President and once came close to it, so I rationally conclude that the extent of his irrationality is exaggerated, mostly just trash talk.
Irrational people often succeed, especially in irrational times. Mussolini was a great example of this.
Irrational by Vulcan standards people often succeed. Irrational by ordinary standards? No, that's not the way to bet.
I'll say it again: One of his strongest assets is his foes believing their own trash talk.
he's not a Vulcan
That's the understatement of the year, if ever I heard one.
Spock was 1/2 Vulcan (the good 1/2)
You really need to stop imagining he's a comic book villain.
Agreed; comic book villains are generally intelligent and three dimensional, unlike Trump.
So when does Dave Chappelle get his show back? He was actually funny, his "Trans" routine could even get Pete Booty-Judge to crack a smile. and don't remember the uproar when Andy Kaufman got "Banned" from SNL Andy's alive BTW, he'll be making a return on the 50th anniversary of his "Death" May 16, 2034 or rather "Tony Clifton" will
On February 3, 2006, Chappelle made his first television interview since production ceased on season three, on The Oprah Winfrey Show. He stated that burnout, losing his creative control, and a work environment that was uncomfortable, were some of the reasons he left the show.
So almost 20 years, too bad there isn't some other Media Dave can perform on
Netflix charges so of course Francis is ignorant of it.
hi(s NAme is Ted SA(randoss!
Stereo-type Much? I watch so much Netflix they're thinking of calling it "Frankie-flix", best source for Hebrew Language shows.
And in other news, it's looking increasingly likely that our favorite commu-socialist Mr. Mamdani may actually win mayor of New York. I look forwards to his initiatives including...
1a. State run grocery stores! Milk...$1! Bread...$1! Eggs....$1. And if those capitalist grocery stores can't keep up with honest (state supported) prices for groceries and go out of business? They should've picked a better model.
1b. (One private grocery stores are gone, hours will be reduced in state-grocery stores to between 3:11 PM and 3:15 PM, every third Tuesday in order to save money)
2a. Billionaires have too much money. Wealth tax them. Every dollar they have over $1 Billion will be taxed at 90%. Give it to the people. (Friends of Mamdani excluded from enforcement).
3. Rent control! No one can ever raise prices anywhere on apartments. This won't be a problem. Capitalist landlords can suck it up. Or sell to the state.
[rests chin on palms] That is really, really interesting
As far as fantasies go, this one seems rather mundane. At least Ed’s fantasies are lurid. Rent control fantasies? Booooring.
The Moe-Saad has a Vote. I'm almost thinking (the) Zoran Ramadan-damn-he is so over the top that he's an Israeli Agent Provocateur, like Eli Cohen. (Hope it works out better for (the) Zoran than it did for Eli) OK, I know "Double Agent" is more accurate, I just love using "Agent Provocateur" in a post.
Well, a few years back he gave a lecture on how, when you're trying to appeal to the public, you should talk about the parts of the socialist agenda that are popular, but never forget the parts that aren't.
So, I expect that as soon as he has a bit of power, the parts of the agenda that aren't popular will come roaring back.
He's probably just another politician promising lower grocery prices, but once elected he'll do fuck all apart from a tax break for Manhattan billionaires.
Brett suspects soon-to-come dark liberal acts! This is unprecedented!
He's such a good predicter on this stuff to. Who could forget Obama and then Biden putting him in a camp. And all that leftist violence after the 2024 election!
Paying attention to shit he actually said just a few years ago, outrageous!
You took a single phrase, and blew it up into a predictive principle.
That's not paying attention to shit, that's just writing bad fiction inspired by a single phrase, and your internal need for liberals to be eeeevil.
I took more than a single phrase, if you bothered watching the video when I linked to it.
I've seen the video when it came up last time.
As many here have noted, the smart money is on him doing the stuff he ran on.
You're buying trouble and doing liberal fan fiction again.
I think the smart money is on him doing everything he thinks he can remotely get away with, whether or not he ran on it.
Yes, you would think that.
You think that about every single liberal you've ever encountered.
Comic book villains!
Take a look at New York's elected officials. Zardoz Madmani will fit right in. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken
That's an ... interesting quote for a Trumpist to pick.
Maybe Bill Ackman should offer Eric Adams a bigger bribe to drop out of the race. Eric Adams has an expensive lifestyle, and the offer so far clearly wasn't high enough.
Zohran Momdani will likely be the next mayor. I suspect that he will not be too different from past mayor. In politics one can promise a lot but few can actually deliver. Mamdani benefits from free attention and a real lack of anything from opposing candidates. We talk a lot about Mamdani platform, do the other candidates really have any kind of a platform?
Yes, that's surprised me too. How come there's no viable GOP candidate to run against him? Surely it must be possible to find someone who can put up a reasonable challenge on a GOP ticket in the city that elected Guliani and Bloomberg mayor? Particularly when the Democrats are running to the left, why can't the GOP find a viable candidate who will campaign somewhere close to the median New York city voter?
The only explanation I can come up with is that today's GOP is so controlled by/terrified of Trump that there is no one who can win the GOP nomination while criticising Trump, which is what you have to do in New York City to do better than the 30% of the vote Trump got in New York City last year.
Seems like Mamdani's ideas must be pretty good if you can't be bothered to actually list or argue with any of his actual proposal and instead feel compelled to make up (even more) silly versions of them.
Let me help you out:
1) Mamdani's proposal is for one government-run grocery store per borough. Seems pretty hard to imagine 5 stores putting commercial grocery stores out of business.
2) Mamdani proposes additional income taxes (2% on high earners), not a wealth tax.
3) Mamdani proposes freezing rents on stabilized units, which are about 40% of the total in the city.
Personally, I think #1 and #3 aren't very good ideas and #2 depends on what you're going to do with the money. But at least I know what he's actually proposing instead of arguing with the socialist in my fever dreams.
LOL. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole, but seriously...
1) This proposal has failed everywhere in the US. Here's one example. https://heartlandernews.com/2025/07/27/kansas-citys-government-backed-grocery-store-failing-customers-taxpayers-more-critics-than-tomatoes/
If it's fair competition, the government can't meaningfully compete. It's just not well set up for it. It can't meaningfully adapt quickly. It doesn't have the motivation in its employees. It doesn't have the logistical chain necessary. It will almost by definition lose money. And it "can" succeed, if it throws enough wild subsidies at the food to lose LOTS of money, and drive nearby stores out of business. It's a miserable idea.
2) Is also a miserable idea. NYC already has the highest income tax in the entire country when you add it to NY State's income tax. Over 14% per year in the highest bracket in the country.. Drop another 2% on that and you're just asking to drive out more high earners. They'll drop across the border to PA, where its ~3%, or to Florida where it's 0%. A 2% increase in the income tax may actually decrease total tax revenue.
3) Also a miserable idea. 40% of total units in the city? That's absurd. Inflation isn't stopping. These units still have repairs and upkeep and taxes. Landlords just won't do any repairs, and everything will go decrepit.
Do I use a little hyperbole? Sure. But the thing is...it's only a little hyperbole. That's what's scary.
1) As far as I know, military commissaries haven't "failed everywhere", and they're by far the most common version of a government-run grocery story in the US.
2) I'm struggling a little with your logic here. If NYC already has the highest tax rate in the country, why haven't all the rich people already left? Instead, NYC is home to more billionaires than any other city in the world. Besides, the richest neighborhoods in the city overwhelmingly supported Mamdani so it seems like the rich people are okay with the policy.
3) Yes, it's probably dumb. A lot of populist policies are dumb, like Trump's "no tax on tips". On the other hand, NYC does have an housing affordability crisis and no one else seems to have any sort of plan at all so we get left with dumb but popular ideas. Cuomo didn't have a housing plan at all until a few weeks ago, and his record on the subject when he was governor was terrible.
"As far as I know, military commissaries haven't "failed everywhere""
Army brat here. They are very much a success! They aren't cheaper because the government runs things more efficiently - they are cheaper because we-the-taxpayers subsidize prices.
To be clear, this isn't an objection to the system. When you are stationed in some foreign country, being able to shop at an 'American' store is really nice. Domestically, they are part of the package, along with health care and housing and what have you. Cut those and you will have to raise wages.
What they aren't is proof that the government can run grocery stores better than Safeway can.
Absolutely. While I wasn't directly thinking of military commissaries, I did throw the general logic in there that "And it "can" succeed, if it throws enough wild subsidies at the food to lose LOTS of money,"
Admittedly, commissaries don't necessarily run nearby stores out of business, but that's because they limit their customer base.
It's worth pointing out that the US government directly subsidizes military commissaries to the tune of over a billion dollars a year. The commissaries have all the labor, transportation, administration, etc paid for by direct appropriation. They need not cover those costs with sales.
And even with those benefits, the following is worth reading.
"As with many historical programs set up to provide convenience and support to military families located in austere locations, the commissaries are now seen more as an earned benefit. That is fine. If the commissaries are to be considered a part of the overall military compensation package, they should be as good as they can be in delivering service and cost savings to patrons while maintaining budget-neutral operations for the taxpayer.
But according to numerous reviews, studies, and assessments over the last decade, the commissaries are not currently meeting any of these three objectives.
First, delivery of services. According to a recent General Accountability Office, or GAO, study DeCA’s sales of groceries and other goods have fallen over $1 billion in the past 6 years. Service members and their families have many, better choices and are signaling with their shopping habits that they prefer the convenience, selection, service and products available in commercial grocery stores that are more readily available than ever.
As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Reed noted at a 2021 Defense Writers Group event, “outside the gate of every base I’ve been to lately, there’s either a Costco or a Walmart, so there is some appeal to the military audience.”
Second, cost savings to patrons. The same GAO study noted that DeCA claims to deliver an average discount of 23.7% over other stores, but needs roughly a billion dollars in annual federal funding to do that.
And it is not even certain that estimated average savings of is accurate. The House Defense Appropriations Committee expressed concern that DeCA has not implemented GAO recommendations to calculate customer savings more accurately.
Third, the commissaries are hardly self-sustaining. DeCA finances the operating costs of commissaries, areas, and headquarters activities primarily with a direct appropriation managed through a working capital fund. DeCA’s reliance on this appropriation has increased from $1.15 billion in 2021 to $1.45 billion in the 2024 request. A 26% increase is not exactly a self-sufficient path."
In summary, defense commissary sales are down. Choices and services are limited, prompting patrons to go elsewhere. And costs are up."
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/its-past-time-to-unleash-the-defense-commissaries/
2)
https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/escape-from-new-york-2025-millionaire-edition/
While you were hyperventilating about the 100k H1-B fee (which I tend to think wont come to pass) and Kimmel, the admin rolled out substantial changes to the H1-b lottery:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations governing the process by which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) selects H-1B registrations for unique beneficiaries for filing of H-1B cap-subject petitions (or H-1B petitions for any year in which the registration requirement is suspended). DHS proposes to implement a weighted selection process that would generally favor the allocation of H-1B visas to higher skilled and higher paid aliens, while maintaining the opportunity for employers to secure H-1B workers at all wage levels, to better serve the Congressional intent for the H-1B program.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/24/2025-18473/weighted-selection-process-for-registrants-and-petitioners-seeking-to-file-cap-subject-h-1b
It's an obtuse read. The gist is that they are skewing the lottery towards higher wage applicants by giving them more chances.
Wage level I, which DOL has set at approximately the 17th percentile of the OEWS wage distribution for the relevant occupation in the relevant location, applies to positions requiring “entry” level workers; wage level II, set at approximately the 34th percentile, applies to positions requiring “qualified” workers; wage level III, set at approximately the 50th percentile, applies to positions requiring “experienced” workers; and wage level IV, set at approximately the 67th percentile, applies to positions requiring “fully competent”
Applicants in wage level N {4,3,2,1} are entered into the lottery N times, and therefore have N times the chance of being selected.
See table 13 p 61 of the pdf for the results. "...the probability of being selected to file a H-1B cap-subject petition for a unique beneficiary would be 15.29 percent for level I, 30.58 percent for level II, 45.87 percent for level III, and 61.16 percent for level IV."
This will probably end up in a Southern California District court; nevertheless, it should be upheld because there is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposal.
"there is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposal"
Except it doesn't really fix the problem.
To a certain extent, the lottery itself is the problem. If you're an employer and you absolutely NEED someone with a high level of expertise, and can't find them in the US, then you should be willing to pay a substantial premium to acquire them.
But right now, you can't do that. You've got to enter a lottery, with a dozen little "consulting" companies, who are hiring out cheap labor that they get from overseas.
The tweak suggested modifies the system a little, but it's still broken. You still can't guarantee getting someone in that you need, even if you're willing to pay a $100,000 premium. And others may just enter lots more people into the lottery to get a shot.
Not quite (please actually read the proposal before responding).
The district court struck down a previous proposal that would have guaranteed those in wage categories 3 and 4 were selected, because zero wage 1 (low wages) were selected (I don't know why, I haven read the decision and it was not appealed).
If it were me, I'd also give a multiplier for education level: PhDs would get a 3x multiplier and Masters a 2x multiplier.
H1-B is not the only worker Visa program. its just the most widely known (and abused).
I did read the proposal. And there's already an "additional" 20,000 H1Bs (or so) for advanced degrees. So the "multiplier" you propose on education is, in a sense, there.
What I mention is a a general problem with the lottery in general. It's a bad system. It eliminates cost-based certainty on need and encourages inefficiencies and gaming the system.
Think about this in the context of tickets for a concert. You could, on one hand, set the prices at a fairly high level. Then people who really want to go can buy the tickets. People who only kinda want to go...avoid it. Scalpers...avoid it. But what if you instead set the prices low, then allow for a lottery. Then everyone applies. Those people who really want to go...just have a chance. Those who only kinda want to go...also have the same chance. Scalpers...jump on it, knowing they can make a big profit in resale. You can skew your lottery a little. But it's still a lottery.
A better system is market based. As this should be for H1Bs
If it were me, I'd learn from the fall of the Soviet Union and accept that the government is not competent at centrally planning an economy.
In unrelated news:
"As President Donald Trump's administration continues its immigration crackdown, his Mar-a-Lago Club employed the highest number of temporary foreign workers [H-2B] sought by the private club in the past decade, according to the latest federal data.
Mar-a-Lago brought in 170 foreign temporary workers for the current fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, according to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) database. It marked the fourth time the club had hired 100 or more temporary foreign workers in the past 10 years. Last fiscal year, Mar-a-Lago got approval for 164 temporary foreign workers."
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2025/09/23/as-mar-a-lago-visa-use-grows-what-is-the-future-of-h-2b-program/86295192007/
Typically, you conflate illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, as progs and libs and the mainstream media always do. Note that Trump's workers are here LEGALLY. He's cracking down on ILLEGAL immigrants. Get it?
I thought the idea was to preferentially hire only American dishwashers and preteen masseuses.
Typically, someone engages with the actual comments as written which are purely about visa policy, and it's abuse.
Nothing about illegals at all.
Didn’t you recently claim these kind of workers were a form of slavery?
I mean, seriously, there are a million MAGA fanatics that would jump at the chance to wash dishes or hide files at arguably the most prestigious property on the planet, but instead he hires Ugandans. America first, baby!
I am sure that when Trump needs more Ugandans, because there are enough REAL 'MURIKANS to fulfill the pre-teen masseuse duties, he will be able to get a waiver from the $100k requirement from Trump.
I hear that Trump is best buddies with Trump. Just like Epstein was.
"Just like Epstein was."
That's a damn lie and you know it! Of all the hoaxiest hoaxes the radical left have ever hoaxed, the Epstein Hoax is the ne plus ultra of hoaxism.
Typically, you conflate illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, as progs and libs and the mainstream media always do. Note that Trump's workers are here LEGALLY. He's cracking down on ILLEGAL immigrants.
I like how you guys keep trotting this out like it's the 90s. Trump has actively been trying to kick out as many legal immigrants as he can figure out how to as well, e.g., Afghan translators fleeing the Talbian.
I agree his assault on legal immigrants is disturbing, particularly those who sacrificed their futures to assist us in Afghanistan.
But both can be true: you can be against removal of LEGAL immigrants and for the removal of ILLEGAL “immigrants.”
Yes, just like you can be against Israel's existence without being antisemitic. It's just that there's a very strong correlation between being anti-illegal immigrant and anti-legal immigrant, just like there's a very strong correlation between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic.
While you were hyperventilating about the 100k H1-B fee (which I tend to think wont come to pass) and Kimmel, the admin rolled out substantial changes to the H1-b lottery
For those that actually bother to follow the conversation, you'll see that I already mentioned this on Monday in the discussion of the H-1B fees.
I think it's a good change, although I'd just get rid of the lottery and essentially do a wage-based auction of the visas. The principal downside to this approach is that it would squeeze out skilled immigration in lower-wage fields like health care.
Kamala Harris:
We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators. That’s what we’re dealing with right now in Donald Trump.
You don't like it when an uppity black woman reminds you that you voted for a corrupt fascist?
Kums-a-lot is Black?? I thought her mom was a Dot-head
One drop rule (when it's convenient).
"fascist"...you spelled 'rapist' wrong
Who was the victim?
$100,000 H1-B fee?? Oughta be $1,000,000 or maybe even $10,000,000, raise it until they stop paying. It's why like Sleepy Joe Biden said, you can't walk into a Dialysis Clinic without having a slight Indian (Dothead variety, not Tomahawk) accent.
"I think it has -- I think it's very bad. They're pumping, it looks like they're pumping into a horse. You have a little child, a little fragile child, and you get a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess. 80 different blends. And they pump it in.“
Pumping and pumping and pumping and pumping
Just can't stop talking about pumping children.
Not a good way to keep deflecting about Epstein!
Where do you get eighty? The Childhood vaccine schedule is for 15 immunizations. Some are multiple dose but that is still not getting a kid to 80. Life expectancy today is 30 years more than in 1900. A large part of that is people surviving childhood because of vaccines.
It’s a quote from innumerate and idiotic President.
You're forgetting the Covid/Flu Jab every kid is supposed to get since so many kids are dying of Covid/Flu, so that's 2 a year, then there's the 2 for RSV, 3 for Hep B, 2 for Rotavirus, 4 for DtaP, 3-4 for Hib, 4 for Pneumococcal, 3 Polio, MMR, Varicella, Hep A, Meningococcal, Varicella. Surprised Smallpox isn't on there. Might want to change that with Ayatollah Ramadan-a-damn-he about to take Orifice in NYC. So your average 18yr old is recommended to have 36 Covid/Flu Shots, counting the others, about 65 total. And if you're a Normal Amurican Male like I was, add in a Tetanus shot every year or 2 (I know they're good for 10, you carry your shot record with you??).
Covid and Flu shots are not really required for kids. It is true that kids were vaccinated during the pandemic but that was really special circumstances. So 80 shots is a big exaggeration. But not really for President Trump as hyperbole is his thing. Everything is biggest, goodest, baddest ect.
I agree with you, but the Center for Disease Continuation doesn't,
"Each year, flu places a large burden on the health and well-being of children and their families. Annual flu vaccination offers the best protection against flu and its potentially serious complications in children.
Children younger than 5 years old—especially those younger than 2—and children of any age with certain chronic health conditions, like asthma and diabetes, are at higher risk of developing potentially serious flu complications. Because these groups of children are at higher risk, it is especially important that they get a seasonal flu vaccine to help prevent flu, and to reduce their risk of being hospitalized or dying from flu if they do get sick.
Healthy children 5 years and older can also get very sick from flu, in addition to spreading flu to vulnerable family members like infants younger than 6 months and adults who are 65 years and older or people of any age who have certain chronic health conditions. It's important to vaccinate everyone 6 months and older against flu each year to help protect those most at risk."
The city of Boston recently paid $150,000 in reparations for long-past racial injustice.
Back in 1989 a pretty white woman was murdered. Her husband described the killer as a black man from the projects. Boston police went into the housing development near the scene of the crime and turned the place upside down. Two men were arrested but not charged with her killing. Within a few months police figured out the husband did it. The husband killed himself (probably) to escape justice. The murder of Carol Stuart became fodder for made-for-TV movies and true crime stories.
Thirty-four years later Willie Bennett, who is well known as the man who didn't kill Carol Stuart, got $100,000 for his trouble. The other guy whose name wasn't so well publicized, got $50,000.
The statute of limitations should have expired decades ago. The payment is to make Mayor Wu feel better.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/23/boston-pays-150k-to-two-men-wrongfully-tied-to-carol-stuart-murder/
Well, at least the loot went to actual victims of an actual injustice, which is a lot better than most 'reparations' demands.
Agreed
"45/47" should go up on Mount Rushmore just for his blowing the whistle on Tylenol. It's one of the most dangerous medications available OTC, and for you "Natural Products" fans, entirely synthetic, unlike Aspirin, which is derived from the bark of the Willow Tree, banning it's use in Children because of a handful of bad outcomes was entirely about making $$$ for McNeil Healthcare. Aspirin reduces incidence of Heart Attacks, Colon Cancer, and through it's Anti-Inflammatory affect, protection from Alzheimers. Tylenol does none of that.
Goodbye also to midol, pamprin, day-quil, theraflu, robitussin, sudafed, vicodin, percoset, lortab, endocet, ultracet and vicks
Poor you. Guess you'll just have to tough out those menstrual cramps.
Not surprised the guy who didn’t know how blow jobs work thinks Vicks is for menstrual cramps.
Midol, Pamprin...
Vicks, Sudafed, lortab…
I think People should take Medical and Scientific Advice from Someone who Writes like this!
I believe the concern about giving children asprin has to due with the association with Reye Syndrome. Not a problem to be ignored.
Reye Syndrome killed a few hundred over a 10 yr period (if you believe the Tylenol Manufacturers, I don't) compared to the millions and millions of Autism cases.
Republicans cheer as Newsom signs law banning mask mandates
lol, well done!
In other overhyped Boston area crime news, Karen Read, who probably didn't kill her boyfriend, is being sued in part for claiming there was a law enforcement conspiracy against her. This claim kept her out of prison. It also caused emotional distress for the family of her dead boyfriend. I hope this is not really emotional distress under Massachusetts law.
Normally this would be an insurance claim settled within policy limits. With Read being a celebrity the family of the dead guy wants some of the media rights revenue. They will have to fight it out with her lawyers, who are owed millions. I don't know whose claim has priority.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/22/livestream-karen-read-wrongful-death-lawsuit-hearing/
Ah, Karen Read...the right's living Tiny, Microscopic St. Ashtray Babbitt
You Fellate Floyd George's decayed (Redacted) with that mouth?
I’m skeptical of Read’s treatment.
City of Kitakyushu is facing criticism over the alleged "Muslim-friendly school lunch". Spoiler: that never happened.
While a Muslim woman did send a petition to the city assembly, it was never voted on; and the "pork-free meal" was actually allergen-free meal served during the national Allergy Week. And contrary to what some X posters say, Kitakyushu has offered allergen-free meals to those in need for more than a decade. Some online commentators say that serving halal food might actually violate law, because Education Basic Act requires "religious neutrality".
(School lunches in Japan are nothing like American ones; they are nutritious, cheap, tasty, and do not use ketchup as vegetable substitute. Very unfortunate you can't have one as an adult.)
I guess the Japanese are unaware of the concept of sack lunches or bento boxes on pork days
Don't say "Sack Lunch" to an Auburn Fan.
Ketchup IS a vegetable -- it was rationed during WWII because of the number of tomatoes in it. Other than the sugar, it's actually quite good for you.
Interesting. It's my understanding that the thing we call ketchup originated as a sauce or paste of fermented fish, in ancient Rome. That, along with tomato-based ketchup, soy sauce, etc., are just salt delivery mechanisms. Know that tomatoes are indigenous to the Americas, and were unknown in Europe before the "age of discovery," i.e., Columbus, et.al., along with potatoes, tobacco, turkey, etc.
The early ketchup was a mushroom based sauce actually.
That Roman version of fish sauce was long gone way before tomatoes became part of the Western diet, so I think the only connection is that they're both sauces.
If you’re referring to garum, it’s still in use and available. I have some at home.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum
Silphium is the long gone Roman flavor thing.
TY. Always interested to learn something new.
Wikipedia is not returning anything fish-related, however…?
I learned about it in a video about a Roman fish recipe that leans heavily on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-QHd4_1geE
Wild how we'll never know how it tasted.
I got some garum a couple of years ago. I had to import it. I still have the bottle, since it was super cool looking. I use it for my fanciest oils.
But I cannot for the life of me remember how it tasted. I may need to grab some more!
It’s kind of a bit more mineral to my palate, but very similar to fish sauce from se Asia. Many of those Asian ones have some sugar, which garum typically does not, as well. I see the IASA brand from time to time.
Check out Patum Peperium, "The Gentleman's Relish". Available on Amazon, although the price is too high to make it regular part of my diet.
Garum as sold today is what we "guess" it tasted like 2000 years ago. It may be good, but no way to know. (I would love to find anything from the time that described production closely enough to recreate a version.)
"Ketsup" in Victorian times was basically anything used to cover up the taste of spoiled food in the days before refrigeration, and it could be worse for your digestion that what it was hiding the taste of. It is only in modern times that the standard tomato sauce based ketsup because the standard...
Really? Give us the nutritional data for popular ketchup brands.
REAL Tomato Ketchup Eddie?
The Kitakyushu Municipal Board of Education on the night of Sept. 22 stated on its website, "Posts suggesting that a decision was made to accommodate Muslims regarding school lunches have been observed, but this is not factual." A city official commented, "We are bewildered by the sudden spread of the misinformation."
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20250924/p2a/00m/0na/015000c
I don't see much problem if a school lunch program in my area did provide accommodations to have food suitable for the religious needs of its students, including a vegan option if the religion opposed the eating of animal products.
School lunches in the U.S. are mixed. I would suspect many public schools have decent lunches, especially those in well funded areas.
Accommodating a large number of incompatible requests (on top of respecting actual food allergies) would be a burden; the usual solution is only for mainstream religions. The likely effect is that small but sincere religious movements are out of luck, or else pranksters will invent religions with peculiar dietary requirements either to mess with the schools or to mock the idea of religious accommodation.
If the rules in Japan are like those in America the government can't declare its food halal. The government can make its food free of pork, shellfish, and other ingredients rabbis and imams disapprove of.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked new standards for the Social Studies curriculum while a lawsuit against them proceeds. The Oklahoman reported plaintiffs "contend the state Education Board violated religious freedom protections, the law requiring accurate and age-appropriate content and the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as well as other laws." Plaintiffs think the standards are too conservative. They encourage skepticism about the 2020 election, for example. But the square peg of general outrage has to be pushed into the round peg of a cause of action.
The vote to stay the standards was 5-2 with 2 members recused. The one judge who dissented in writing thought the Open Meeting Act claim required factual development in a trial court.
The case is here: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123237&cmid=140382.
Earlier reporting is here: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/politics/state/2025/07/01/ryan-walters-oklahoma-faces-new-lawsuit-controversial-social-studies-standards/84433780007/
"The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked new standards for the Social Studies curriculum while a lawsuit against them proceeds."
The solution is for the Oklahoma legislature to block funding for K-12 while the lawsuit proceeds. And maybe funding for the court system as well.
The legislature could pass a law ratifying the contested curriculum. Then only the claims of religious content would remain.
They should definitely do that. I imagine it would be extremely popular amongst their voters when their kids can't go to school and criminals all have to be released because they can't be arraigned.
Maybe someone should check in on Peter Thiel:
For about a year now, Thiel has been publicly laying out his understanding of biblical prophecies and the potential for the rapid advance of technology to bring about an apocalyptic future. In a lecture Monday, he encouraged an audience to continue working toward scientific progress, whether in AI or other forms of technology. Fearing or regulating it, or opposing technological progress, would hasten the coming of the Antichrist, Thiel said, according to people who attended.
For about a year now, Thiel has been publicly laying out his understanding of biblical prophecies and the potential for the rapid advance of technology to bring about an apocalyptic future.
In a lecture Monday, he encouraged an audience to continue working toward scientific progress, whether in AI or other forms of technology. Fearing or regulating it, or opposing technological progress, would hasten the coming of the Antichrist, Thiel said, according to people who attended.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/peter-thiel-antichrist-lectures-dd28c876
Christianity is my favorite doomsday cult. Doesn't Thiel have things backwards, though? The heralding of the antichrist is necessary to bring about the end of times...a day we're all supposedly looking forward to.
CHRISTIANS believe we will neither know when the 2nd coming will occur nor be able to influence when it does.
Well, we JEWS know better. He ain't comin man, it's been almost 2,000 years, I've heard of "CPT" but this is ridiculous.
You Christians should switch your supernatural beliefs. The Jews seemed to have interpreted the Bible completely backwards but in benevolent fashion:
To Google AI: Do the Jews believe in original sin? No, Jews do not believe in the Christian concept of original sin; they believe that humans are born pure and innocent, with a God-given free will to choose between good and evil.
Do the Jews believe in hell? While there is no singular, official Jewish doctrine on the afterlife, many Jewish traditions incorporate the concept of a cleansing or purification process called Gehenna (or Gehinnom) rather than an eternal hell of physical punishment
Do the Jews believe in Doomsday? Yes, Jews do believe in an end of times, or Messianic Age (also called Olam HaBa), which is the concept of an "apocalypse" in a Jewish context, involving the coming of the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of a utopian, universal peace on Earth
Who will be the Jewish messiah? The Jewish Messiah, or Moshiach, will be a human leader, a descendant of King David, who will bring about an era of global peace, restore the Temple in Jerusalem, and gather all Jews to the Land of Israel.
One of you boys has the Bible dead ass wrong. Sucks to be you.
Interesting... I was looking up the line in Matthew 5:18 about Christianity not changing one iota of the law, and then I got this instead:
Content Unavailable Bible Gateway is currently unavailable to consumers in the United Kingdom and European Union due to technical issues. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Paid Bible Gateway Plus account users in these regions should receive a refund for their subscription no later than September 15, 2025. If you have not received a refund by this date, please reach out to Customer Service. Frequently Asked Questions When will access to Bible Gateway be restored for UK and EU consumers? We are working on a new solution. I have a paid subscription to Bible Gateway Plus. Will I be reimbursed? Yes, users who have a paid Bible Gateway Plus account should receive a refund for their subscription no later than September 15, 2025. If you have not received a refund by this date, please reach out to Customer Service. Will saved content (e.g., notes, progress) be accessible? No, all account data and saved content will no longer be accessible. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. What content will be available once Bible Gateway is restored? We are working on a new solution.
Content Unavailable Bible Gateway is currently unavailable to consumers in the United Kingdom and European Union due to technical issues. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.
Paid Bible Gateway Plus account users in these regions should receive a refund for their subscription no later than September 15, 2025. If you have not received a refund by this date, please reach out to Customer Service.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will access to Bible Gateway be restored for UK and EU consumers? We are working on a new solution.
I have a paid subscription to Bible Gateway Plus. Will I be reimbursed? Yes, users who have a paid Bible Gateway Plus account should receive a refund for their subscription no later than September 15, 2025. If you have not received a refund by this date, please reach out to Customer Service.
Will saved content (e.g., notes, progress) be accessible? No, all account data and saved content will no longer be accessible. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. What content will be available once Bible Gateway is restored? We are working on a new solution.
I wonder what kind of "technical issues" get an entire website shut down for more than a week.
The word I hear is that the 'technical issue" is the "Online Safety Act" or maybe Europe's General Data Protection Regulation. That they had to block Europe on account of having no technical means of complying.
The Online Safety Act is UK law, and has no conceivable bearing on the availability of this website. GDPR is also irrelevant, since there is no conceivable reason why the Bible Gateway website would collect any of my personal data.
Goobers.
I was watching an episode of The Rebel, a 1950's/'60's Western, when the protagonist mentioned "goobers and beans" as a rather poor fare. So, I looked it up, and found that goobers are peanuts boiled in salt water, and known in the South. I had never hear of goobers, save the chocolate covered movie theater snack, or as a dumb, silly person.
So, I ordered some raw peanuts, in the shell, to try it out.
Is anyone here familiar with this?
Yes. In the modern South, in commerce they're usually called boiled peanuts to avoid confusing Yanks. "Goobers" is definitely slang, and my sense -- having moved out of the Deep South before college -- is that it's on the way out of broad usage.
"Goober Peas" was an old Civil War song.
Boiled Peanuts, called the "Caviar of the South" (by you Yankees, no self respecting Southerner would call them that, because first you'd have to answer "What the fuck is Caviar??" Best is to boil Green Peanuts in Salt Water (it's perfect when there's just a little too much salt to go into Solution, then add more to the top of the peanuts) Green Peanuts are freshly picked ones, only available for a month or so in the Summer, and go bad in umm, a few days. You can do almost as well with Raw Peanuts which are available year round, BUT, you have to soak them for 24 hrs in the super-saturated Brine solution, then Boil them for however long to get them tender, usually 2-3 hours I usually Boil 2 lbs, gorge myself then put the remainder in the Fridge, like Pizza, it's also good cold the next day. There are also the canned Variety, "Peanut Patch" if you can't wait. Avoid the Roadside stands in the South, those are horrible, literally have been boiling for days, you Yankee Saps are the only ones who buy them.
Ha, ha, that's funny. I remember an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies where the Clampets were invited to a fancy reception, and when Jethro came to the buffet and saw a big display of Caviar he exclaimed "Oh, fish eggs!"
Back to the goobers, do you spice the water, too? I saw a youtube of some Louisiana dudes doing a huge batch and they added copious amounts of Louisiana Fishfry Company Crawfish Boil (a powder); they added it to the water, and then dusted the peanuts with it after. That stuff's expensive, though! I was thinking for a small batch as I will do I could use my Slap Yo Mama spice. Thoughts?
Those Cajuns do all sorts of crazy (redacted) sucking the Brains out of Crawfish for one, anyone for Kuru??? I do love the "Slap Yo Mama" spice, put it on Pizza, with some Texas Pete (which is made in NC, but who would buy "North Carolina Pete"??) Oh, and my Ground up Prevacid/Simvastatin Oh, and if you're in Cajun Land, ask for the "Boudin Balls" First time someone suggested it, I thought it was a Goof, I'm going to ask for the "Boudin Balls" and the 300lb Black Cook named "Boudin" is going to come out and say "Here you go!!!" They're delicious, like Hushpuppies (don't tell me you don't know what they are) with ground sausage and pepper in them
This guy knows his boiled peanuts.
A guy in my office who grew up in the northern part of Florida does this and brings them in at least once a year.
I don't know... they're peanuts. Hard to get excited over boiled, salted peanuts when I can just buy a bunch of different kinds of nuts prepared in multiple different ways with a variety of seasonings and/or sweeteners.
My personal preference is for salted roasted peanuts, but my wife likes them boiled, that's how they're served in the Philippines. She'll boil up a batch once in a while.
But 2-3 hours? That leaves them too mushy! You want them to have at least SOME crunch left.
And, yeah, the roadside stands do boil them too long.
Crunchy Boiled Peanuts? You probably like Potato Salad, Cole Slaw, and Mayonnaise too. You weren't chosen for a reason.
Yup, that's me, alright. Raised on Miracle Whip, but I've been warming to mayo.
that's how they're served in the Philippines
Just straight, or then sauteed in oil with a lot of garlic and coarse grain salt?
As a snack, the former.
On the road I take to drive to the marina where I keep my boat I probably see half a dozen road side vendors. Often there is a big kettle (maybe two feet in diameter) over an open fire boiling peanuts. They are also sold in many Seven-Eleven type stores in single serving bags. Most peeps don't prepare themselves since they are so cheap to buy and cooking them is a pain in the ass.
You put them in Pepsi, it’s a Southern thing. Give it a try.
My son was bragging the other day about how good Coke tasted with a little salt. I had to break it to him that we were sticking pretzel sticks in our cola as far back as the 70's.
Ha, ha, I remember that. Soda fountain at the local candy store in the Bronx, a Coke in a paper cone cup in a stainless steel holder, and dipping pretzel sticks into the Coke. Wow, memories. That was a treat!
Well, my raw peanuts arrive today, via Amazon, and I have some Slap Yo Mama on hand, and a ton of Mortan's Kosher salt. We'll see.
Gotta soak them 24 hrs in the super salty water, not sure about the "Mortan's". I just get the cheap Public non-Iodized variety (who doesn't get enough Iodine now a days??) and when in doubt, add more, you can deal with the Heart Failure later.
Sorry, it's Morton, I keep a ton on hand as I use it for brining chickens, briskets, etc.
Where were the Secret Service guys AHEAD of Trump when he got on the escalator?
OK, the explanation sounds possible -- that the cameraman's heels tripped the comb at the top of the escalator -- but why didn't the Secret Service think of that possibility and prevent him from getting that close to it...
Or disable the shutoff while the POTUS was on the escalator?
I know that building fire alarms are routinely disabled (i.e. put into silent alarm only) so that if someone pulls a false alarm, nothing will happen. I've had that done at student events -- there is protocol for it, you have to hire a fire watch, but it's done.
AND I wouldn't have let him go up the escalator if it had a problem -- what escalators can then do is send all the stairs quickly to the bottom. I'm not exactly sure how, but this has happened...
That serves a different purpose than a fire alarm which can be replaced by people watching for and warning of a fire. Nobody wants what would result if the president got hurt by the escalator mechanism because the shutoff was disabled. Conspiracy theories, late night hosts cancelled, random people on the internet blamed, and more.
Um, the shutoff is a safety mechanism. Disabling safety mechanisms is… really dumb. Do you ever think things through before you propose them?
The Rapture
I should try to watch that Mimi Rogers film entitled The Rapture. I recall it being rather good.
Ahh, Mrs. Kensington........are you trying to seduce me??
But does she get her kit off?
But enough about me...UN Assembly:
"In my first term, I built the greatest economy in the history of the world. We had the best economy ever, history of the world, and I'm doing the same thing again, but this time it's actually much bigger and even better. The numbers far surpass my record-setting first term.
Likewise, in a period of just seven months, I have ended seven unendable wars. They said they were unendable. You're never going to get them solved...No president or prime minister. And for that matter, no other country has ever done anything close to that, and I did it in just seven months. It's never happened before. There's never been anything like that...Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements"
"Many years ago, a very successful real estate developer in New York, known as Donald J. Trump, I bid on the renovation and rebuilding of this very United Nations complex.
I remember it so well. I said at the time that I would do it for $500 million, rebuilding everything. It would be beautiful. I used to talk about, "I'm going to give you marble floors, they're going to give you terrazzo." The best of everything. "You're going to have mahogany walls, they're going to give you plastic." But they decided to go in another direction, which was much more expensive at the time, which actually produced a far inferior product. "
Isn't it just great when world leaders like the presidents of France and the US come to the UN General Assembly to give a visionary speech about their hopes and dreams for the future of humanity?
Speaking of which, there is now a non-paywalled translation of Macron's speech: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-macron-speech-recognizing-palestine-time-has-come-to-deliver-justice/
And here is the speech of President Abbas, which he wasn't able to deliver in person due to unlawful action by the US Regime.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-abbas-speech-at-2-state-summit-we-demand-a-ceasefire-hamas-must-hand-arms-to-pa/
What is that unlawful action of the "US Regime?"
The US ought to have kidnapped him and given him to Israel to trade for their kidnapped hostages. The Soviets would have done far worse -- they would have had his body reduced to small pieces and dumped on his family's doorstep.
We let Putin onto American soil and didn't kidnap him in exchange for the 35,000 Ukrainian children he abducted.
Among other stupidity, Hamas doesn’t value Abbas much.
Abbas isn't hidden away in a bunker. He's in the West Bank (most of the time). Israel could arrest him any time them want. He has a palace he lives in. Rather hard to not notice. It would cause the West Bank security situation to rapidly become even worse than it already is but there's no means for the weakened west bank security forces to stop them.
The US ought to have kidnapped him and given him to Israel to trade for their kidnapped hostages.
I have double checked. There is actually not a law requiring you to post every thought that comes into your head.
Setting aside the illegality, why the fuck would Hamas trade its hostages for Abbas? You know that Hamas and Abbas are enemies, right?
Under section 11 of the UN Headquarters Agreement of 1947, a treaty ratified by the United States:
The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district.
(emphasis added)
Plenty of terrorist sanction laws passed post 1947 that let us lawfully ban terrorists like Abbas from getting visas.
Not in violation of a treaty they don't.
Which is why such liminaries as Castro, Che Guevara, Khrushchev, and the current Al Qaeda president of Syria were all able to come to New York to speak at the UN.
Doesn't he have an appointment at the Saudi Embassy?
The UN is now an even bigger joke than is use to be. On arriving Trump and his wife walked up to a functioning escalator and as soon as they got on it stopped working. The explanation from the UN was that someone pressed the emergency stop button for the escalator. Once Trump started his speech the teleprompter stopped working. Some of Trump's first remarks were the only thing he got from the UN was an escalator that did not work and a teleprompter that did not work. He also said the person working the teleprompter was in trouble. He then went on to extemporaneously finish the speech.
Whatever one thinks about how petty the UN's actions were no one in their right mind would try and out petty Trump.
There were two escalators. One was working, one was not. Melania hopped on the one not working and Trump and company followed. It's all on video if you care to take a look
You think this was some intentional sabotage? JFC
The United Nations correspondent for the Associated Press, Farnoush Amiri, reported that “[a] UN official said the UN understands that someone from the president’s party who ran ahead of him inadvertently triggered the stop mechanism on the escalator. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House was operating the teleprompter for Trump.”
https://substack.com/inbox/post/174416626
Also:
Trump loyalist senator Mike Lee (R-UT) called for defunding the U.N. for “orchestrating escalator and teleprompter malfunctions.”
I'm reminded of that line from Born Yesterday where Judy Holliday's character is upset a member of Congress allowed her boor of a boyfriend to hector him. She said he was an elected representative of the people & deserved more respect.
Mike Lee deserves very little respect.
Jimmy Kimmel had a good callback to 2015 when referencing the elevator bit.
"The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House was operating the teleprompter for Trump.” As always, anonymous.
It's almost as if the Regime has history punishing people who disagree with Trump publicly.
"UN official said the UN understands"
Seems ironclad.
the UN understands
Big news, if true.
The UN is now an even bigger joke than is use[d] to be.
Well yes. That's what happens when the US wipes its backside with international law. The obvious solution seems to be for the US to stop doing that. It's basically the equivalent of a country where rifles are sold at Wallmart complaining that there's too much gun violence.
You're an idiot.
The solution, of course, is to sell rifles at every gas station and convenience store. Arm EVERYBODY and no more gun violence.
At the Kirk eulogy Trump and Musk were seated next to each other behind bulletproof glass. A hired lip reader had Trump saying to Musk, 'I missed you.' Which is touching.
What I found more touching were two gun nuts behind bulletproof glass at a funeral of another gun nut who was killed by a gun.
We'll have to bulletproof the entire nation to accommodate Ed's gun utopia
UN is now saying comb at top tripped safety stop.
That actually seems plausible -- but where was the USSS -- there is a simple "don't stand there" to prevent that.
And now Trump wants whomever pushed the stop button on the escalator arrested. The video of him and Melania quietly coming to a pause on the escalator is practically banal. Yet there needs to be an arrest!
"It's amazing that Melania and I didn't fall forward onto the sharp edges of these steel steps, face first," Trump wrote. "It was only that we were each holding the handrail tightly or, it would have been a disaster." NPR
This would be a lot more funny if he wasn't our actual president.
Massachusetts may see a primary fight between a youngish liberal vs. an ancient progressive wanting to be Senator. Seth Moulton drew outrage from the far left last year when he said he didn't want his girls getting run over by a male athlete playing on a girls' team. Outside of the bluest enclaves his attitude should win votes. But the bluest enclaves have outsized influence in primaries, and the system is behind Markey because you don't strike at the king if you think you might miss.
If the Boston Globe and New York Times articles had discussed specific policy differences I would have mentioned them. The articles were all vague generalities except for the culture war issue.
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/09/24/moulton-readies-primary-challenge-against-markey-massachusetts/
Interesting. My sense is that an increasing share of the electorate in different parts of the world is so fed up with culture war BS that they are ready to punish whichever side is perceived as having tried to start a culture war. But I have no idea whether that's also true in Massachusetts, and if so how that would play out.
If the mASSgop were only slightly less incompetent, they'd win big in Taxachusetts. Joe Sixpack's pissed -- energy costs are through the roof, the state's budget has been busted housing illegal aliens, crime is through the roof, the roads are decrepit and congested and our once great K-12 schools have gone to hell.
People may lean left, but they want to go back to the 1980s when things were sane...
Oh John, Moulton said the same thing about girls sports.
Can we get an update from the resident Millei fanboys? Kaz? Why does he need a bailout?
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/09/22/argentinas-finances-just-got-even-more-surreal
The problem with libertarian economics is eventually you run out of other people's money.
The guy hired a psychic to communicate with his dead dog. It’s not as if there weren’t signs.
And who can forget Javier’s highest and best contribution to US domestic politics: fueling what was, in retrospect, the high water mark of Musk’s public ketamine usage!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMVb0RNptA
“Argentina is a systemically important US ally,” Scott Bessent, America’s treasury secretary, wrote on X, a social network. He added that the United States “stands ready to do what is needed” and that “all options for stabilization are on the table.” “Argentina will be Great Again.”
I wasn't aware of this.
But I think the more likely reason we're send taxpayer dollars to Argentina is this. He's a fellow crypto bro.
"Presidential promotion: In mid-February 2025, Milei used his social media account on X (formerly Twitter) to promote the little-known virtual currency $LIBRA, claiming it would fund small businesses and entrepreneurs. His post initially boosted the value of the meme coin significantly.
Rapid collapse: Within hours of Milei's post, the coin's value plummeted, a phenomenon known as a "rug pull," where early investors cash out, leaving others with heavy losses.
Response and denial: Milei quickly deleted his post, claiming he was unaware of the project's details and had been misled. The presidential office stated he was not involved in the coin's development.
Investor outrage: The sudden crash wiped out millions of dollars in savings, with many investors pointing to Milei's endorsement as the reason they invested."
via FOX Business. Bessent on Argentina: "The plan is as long as President Milei continues with his strong economic policies to help him, to bridge him to the election, we are not going to let a disequilibrium in the market cause a backup in his substantial economic reforms."
OK in all seriousness, this is fucked up. Latin American Strongmen countries: Even if you fuck up the economy, we'll just give you money if we like you!
Trump's heavy-handed yet arbitrary foreign policy is chasing some weird terrible empire where we do all the costs and get none of the benefits in soft or hard power.
Yes. They are openly admitting they are using taxpayer dollars to prop up their buddy.
I haven't been following the latest developments closely, but Argentina's problems have been 75 years in the making, that's a pretty deep hole they've dug to be able to climb out of in two years.
Then there were three major problems that Millei had to deal with:
1. A regulatory regime hostile to private property which discouraged investment.
2. An inflation rate that has averaged 189% since 1944, and absolutely no confidence in the Argentine Peso.
3. Widespread and endemic corruption.
He's made the most progress in 1, which hopefully in the long term will make 2 and 3 better.
What would your solution be, keep digging the hole deeper?
Here's a pretty good analysis of what's going on now:
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/argentina-crisis-us-rescue-may-invite-new-problems
Ah, excuses! So predictable
Yeah, but what does this have to do with anything we, as a nation, care about? Does it meaningfully disadvantage an enemy like Russia? Or does it send food to millions of starving people in Gaza? What are my taxes going to here? Just another would-be dictator that Trump is using to make himself look stronger?
And, our cold civil war warms up another fraction of a degree.
One killed, others wounded as sniper attacks ICE facility in Dallas
Everyone shot was a detainee, the sniper shot into a van transporting them to the facility. It's not yet clear if he was targeting detainees or ICE.
This isn't what a Civil War looks like, cold or no.
Between this and your hot take on democracy being a proxy civil war you almost seem as eager as Ed for Civil War 2.
We're not geographically organized like that; a full-blown civil war is not gonna happen.
Plenty of civil wars are not geographically organized, and they generally end up being the worst ones for civilian casualties.
You think ethnically organized? Or a large component of the military joins an insurgency?
No; not seeing it. It's just fringey wishcasting from people who want bad things.
I'm not really worried. Still expecting to collect my pension, pay taxes, and have 911 working for the rest of my life.
But I don't see why you think it needs to be geographic or ethnic. Politics is more than enough. People can label it a "revolution" but it amounts to the same thing.
Russian Civil War Spanish Civil War Mexican Civil War Colombian Civil War English Civil War - really as much politics as religion. Chinese Civil War
I concede I was originally being facile and leaning too much on the US civil war when I essentialized geography.
I did try and namecheck military defections as the third way civil wars organize above.
I think you do need some way for the factions to be organized, either via institutions (i.e. military), geography, or some other clear indicator of what side you're on (race or ethnicity.)
I don't see anything that makes me think cold civil war. Whatever that is. It's just a terminal place fringey people end up.
Plenty of room for smaller scale civic unrest. Like, if Trump invades Chicago, we'll see what pops up. But it won't be nationally scaled.
"originally being facile" in orther world being dishonest as usual
Again, I'm not predicting a civil war, much less saying we're already in the cold part of it.
But it's worth remembering that "fringey people" is all it takes if they start fighting as an organized unit. Imagine 0.1% of the US population labeling themselves the Whatever Army, armed with perfectly legal stuff like AR-15s, taking orders and engaging in organized attacks. That's an army of 350,000 people in the field. That's a civil war regardless of what anyone else wants, even if 99.9% of us want nothing more than hugs, kisses, and forgiveness.
And right now I'd estimate it's more than 0.1% (on "both" sides) but they aren't organized and unlikely to become organized. They're the kind of marginally rational people who can't be relied upon to execute any kind of collective plan.
It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of people in places like Syria and Lebanon would've preferred to have an ordinary life where they go to work and raise families, and just politely keep clear of those wrong believers in the next village down the road. But once it starts people have to pick sides. The men with guns don't tolerate neutrality.
Why would they do anything so stupid, though? The moment they formed up for an organized attack, you'd have something the US military could bomb the hell out of.
At those numbers you'd engage in a large scale program of assassination, instead. Make it suicidal to run for office for the opposing side, cause anybody who decided they'd work for the opposing side to be uninsurable.
It would look, frankly, like what's going on now, only turned up to 11 or 12.
You're probably right.
However: Why would they do anything so stupid, though? The moment they formed up for an organized attack, you'd have something the US military could bomb the hell out of.
That's true, but part of the effectiveness of the Vietcong, Taliban, , etc was willingness to take casualties.
Fortunately I don't think we have 0.1% of the population literally willing to die for MAGA, antifa, or whatever.
That's what makes assassination as a tactic work, though: Once you know what you're doing, the odds of the assassin getting caught aren't all that great, and it's the people on the other side who have to literally be willing to die for whatever.
If the motive is no more than satisfying one's hatred, and perhaps causing disruption, assassination and truck bombings are fine tactics. They could also be preparatory.
But if your goal is to replace the current regime, even just locally, at some point you have to openly and publicly assert control.
Its not civil war its terrorists trying to start a civil war.
For all the manifestos we've seen, that's not been a motive for quite some time.
Closest I get is the Boogaloo wankers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
Thanks (really) for withholding blame until there's some evidence. Used to be normal but now it puts you in the top 10%.
With every single act of political violence in the past five years being perpetrated by one persuasion, it is no longer necessary to opine the culprit
Did you have a psychotic breakdown or something?
Trump - MAGA Kirk - MAGA Hortman - MAGA Shapiro - MAGA Pelosi - MAGA Whitmer - MAGA DNC Arizona - MAGA J6 - MAGA
Did I miss anything?
Ah, you ARE having a psychotic breakdown. OK, then.
Not like I had to withhold it for long, though. Wrote "Anti-ICE" on his cartridges...
Note for Sarcastr0: I'm not expecting a Civil war like in the 1860s, I'm expecting something more like the Irish "Troubles", a high background level of terrorism.
1. No one called The Troubles a civil war, cold or no.
2. The Troubles was about an occupying force. Do you think that's going to happen in the US soon? That seems the big news to stand on, not some cliché'd 'politics got bad so violence is coming.''
3. When you repeat how you expect terrible violence due to politics it makes you look eager. We don't need another Dr. Ed.
The difference between a "civil war" and the "Troubles" was pretty much academic to anybody who got blown up by an IRA bomb.
And are you missing all the "Regime" talk? A faction on the left have decided to treat a democratically elected Republican government AS an occupying force.
I'm not looking forward to this, not one bit. Civil society is a lot more fragile than people realize, and if even a small fraction of the partisans on both sides decide shooting at each other is on the table, I'm not sure how we hold it together.
Yes, sending the US military into a non-consenting state sure looks like an occupying force. But whether they *do* occupation, that's another question. That's not what happened in LA, shitty though that was.
You just seem to have felt some civil war vibes and are running with it. You may say you're not looking forwards to it - Ed says the same thing. But as with vibes most of the time, they come more from you than anything else.
"Yes, sending the US military into a non-consenting state sure looks like an occupying force."
Ah, you're getting it. Just like the sending the military to open the school house doors after Brown!
You don't have to have justice on your side, you don't have to have the law on your side, you just have to decide that you're no longer going to grant the legitimacy of the other side enforcing laws you don't like, and, wham, you start to see an occupying army instead of law enforcement.
Nothing like school desegregation happened in LA. Nothing like school desegregation happened in DC.
Your analogies only underscore how performative Trump's use of the military is.
You don't have to have justice on your side Says the guy for whom cruelty against immigrants is a tool in his kit.
Don't lecture me on righteousness. Or, feel free to, and I will file it according to your moral integrity.
Ah, it's different when Democrats decide to violate federal law as a matter of state policy!
Oh, wait, it was Democrats in the case of Brown, too...
You don't get to make this choice! You don't GET to say, "I don't LIKE this federal law, so you can't enforce it in my state!"
It's NOT different, not one iota, this time around.
Just so we're all on the same page here, what federal law do you say the State of California violated?
I'm not saying they didn't violate any laws. I just want to know what specific statute you had in mind.
I'm not claiming that the State of California is violating a federal law, or at least that's not my argument.
Rather, they don't want a federal law enforced in their state, and so federal law enforcement coming into their state to enforce it is like an occupying army.
Just like it was in the case of Brown, and the National Guard being sent in.
Sarcastr0 doesn't like this comparison because he thinks it's different if he, too, doesn't like the federal law in question.
There is an analogy between Little Rock, where the National Guard was misused to support violation of civil rights, and Los Angeles, where the National Guard was misused to support violation of civil rights. The difference that Brett Bellmore is failing to understand is the difference between a soldier improperly refusing legal orders and a soldier properly refusing illegal orders. Eisenhower corrected the first in Little Rock by nationalizing the Guard; Trump punished the second in Los Angeles by nationalizing the Guard.
One of the ways America is exceptional is how it's got various power centers at verious levels. It's a great bulwark against tyranny.
So, of course, MAGA hates it. They want an immune unitary executive and all authority with the federal government.
And they wrap it in civil rights, this faction that's the most hostile to civil rights since the Dixiecrats. Hypocrisy is just another flex to them.
That's what they currently want; previously the same people were all for states' rights when they didn't control the federal government.
"One of the ways America is exceptional is how it's got various power centers at various levels. It's a great bulwark against tyranny."
Well, it was a great bulwark against tyranny until the Democrats blew it away back during FDR's time in office.
You don't get to insist everything has to be decided at the federal level when you're in power, and play the federalism card when you're not in power.
You fought to deny Arizona the right to enforce federal immigration law when a Democratic administration wanted it left unenforced, now you don't get to be sanctuary states now that a Republican is, it's as simple as that.
You want federalism back? Cool, I want it back, too. But getting it back only when Republicans control the federal government isn't on the table, and you'd better get used to that.
We're going to have to restore federalism in a way where you can't just turn it on and off like a light switch, or not at all.
until the Democrats blew it away back during FDR's time in office.
Believe it or not, state and local governments are still things and still have authority even after FDR. You're so fucking weird about that guy.
You fought to deny Arizona the right to enforce federal immigration law Immigration law is federal. Arizona was not enforcing it, they were making their own take on it. That's impossible.
There's a whole body of law about federal abstention vs supremacy and commandeering and dual sovereigns. It's complex. It's also federalism, despite your list of grievances. You love to be reductive. So believe it or not your vibes are not actually the law.
To me the more relevant thing supporting your guess is that a rational but anti-immigrant shooter would have had much better targets they could go after, e.g. the spot in every large city where day laborers hang out looking for work.
I'm less impressed by the marked cartridges thing. It seems to be a fad among the copycat mass shooters, which would argue for just another crazy. And you have to concede that Kash Patel has a well-known and recently confirmed habit of jumping the gun and being proven wrong.
Brett, when you write "Anti ICE" on your ammo, your intent is kinda clear...
Unmarked van, he probably thought he was shooting ICE people.
Or he thought he was killing criminal detainees, seems that both are possible. I agree that he was shooting at a van but if the intention was to kill ICE personnel, why not shoot the driver and front seat passenger. The shooter seem to be intent on the cargo, the detainees.
Ed, to be clear, I only considered it an open question until that was reported.
Until that fact came out, he could have been deliberately targeting detainees, rather than ICE.
Nothing amusing about innocent people being targeted by left wing lunatics, whether ICE agents or the detainees they are transporting.
But what is amusing is several hours before it happened, I posted about left wing lunatics in Portland trying to burn ICE agents alive, and maybe even a few detainees for all they know, and the response is, didn't happen. Andy Ngo made it up, implausible, nobody else is reporting it.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Getting incrementally hotter by the month.
"Everyone shot was a detainee, the sniper shot into a van transporting them to the facility. It's not yet clear if he was targeting detainees or ICE."
I am reminded of the classic Frankie Lane song "Aces and Eights" and the lyrics "some boozy drover firing wild just sealed the gambler's doom". It is not clear to me if the shooter was targeting anything at all.
But then I was required to take Military Science courses and "volunteer" for ROTC as a freshman so maybe my standards for hitting targets with firearms may be a little different than the posters in this thread.
More to the point about a cold (or hot) civil war I have to point out some almost universally agreed on facts. Almost every grocery store would run out of basic food stuffs in a couple of days without regular deliveries from the big rigs. The big Publix (biggest grocery chain in Florida) distribution center in Miami that runs under an overpass (read easy to control checkpoint) and food distribution to the biggest population center in Florida could be easily disrupted.
While I am not sure about the details, I have seen claims that seven bricks of C4 could take out the water distribution system on Lake Lanier that supplies water to Atlanta. My experience driving in Atlanta leads me to believe there are choke points for food delivery as well.
Point is big MMSAs would be shit out of luck in less than a week with targeted infrastructure disruptions. No need to shoot anyone for massive civil unrest, simply disrupt food, water, and fuel distribution and big cities (read liberal strongholds) would quickly turn into a nasty version of Animal Farm. Forget about finding stuff like arugula. A ten-pound bag of rice would be worth its weight in gold (or 5.56 rounds).
I have to think someone experienced in command and control could come up with a much better tactics and strategery than what I have just posted and it would require far less than .01% of the crazies to carry it out. YMMV
Have you met Dr. Ed?
I was reading this article from the Royal United Services Institute and it had an interesting point about the ability of the IEEPA to set tariffs.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/us-supreme-courts-tariff-trolley-problem
Trump says the authority under the IEEPA to ‘regulate . . . importation’ of ‘property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.’ allows for the implementation of extremely broad tariffs against every country in the world after he has declared an emergency.
If that is true, then a future Democratic president could use it to implement a sweeping and unilateral carbon border tax. I can't see any way you can allow Trump's tariffs and not allow such a carbon tax.
Do people think the President should have the authority to unilaterally apply a carbon border tax?
Looks the right-wing terrorism will continue for the foreseeable future. https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-people-shot-dallas-ice-field-office-source/story?id=125887376
"FBI special agent Joe Rothrock said it appeared that rounds "found near the suspected shooter contain messages that are anti-ICE in nature." FBI Director Kash Patel released images of recovered unspent shell casings, including one engraved with the phrase "ANTI ICE."
Very right wing!
See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15130133/Joshua-Jahn-Dallas-ICE-sniper-migrants-Texas.html
He's just testing out the party line to see how it flies.
False Flag.
Are you one of the retards still peddling the "Kirk's shooter, who was in a romantic relationship with a trans "woman" and known to have become very leftist in his political leanings, was a groyper" line too?
The right-wing blogosphere is awash with gun experts debunking the whole theory that Tyler Robinson shot Kirk at all. Could all be the usual MAGA propensity for conspiracy theories, but it is creating plausible doubt that Robinson is guilty.
Just checking in-
1. Have we seen the 1500% reduction in drug prices yet?
2. Related to (1), I've heard that cocaine prices are at a record low ... perhaps this is what Trump was talking about? "Don't take Tylenol, because cocaine is so cheap?"
3. Related to (1) and (2), have we seen a 5% reduction in drug prices (excluding cocaine)? Was Trump talking about a reduction in acetaminophen's price? Or was he talking about a reduction in the price of the stock of its' manufacturer ... after his friends had shorted it?
4. Also also, has a certain Trump defender ... sorry, straight shooter ... come up with a new explanation for a 1500% reduction? If so, can he explain to us again what drug prices are now that they have been reduced 1500%, and how Trump managed to make that happen and why my eyes keep lying to me? Is the only reason I haven't noticed because I'm not snorting all the cheap cocaine?
5. Also also also, do we consider the massive reduction in the price of cocaine a benefit to the Trump family? I kid! There are absolutely no rumors that a child named after Trump does cocaine. None.
Just asking questions...
You're really going to go down the Presidential Offspring (love the Offspring)/Cocaine Highway??? Because Hunter's literally spilled more Cocaine than Don Jr/Eric/Tiffany have snorted in their entire lives. I think I had the over/under for Hunter's OD Death as October 1, not looking to good for my prediction, hope none of you took me seriously and played it on Intrade
Cocaine is (was) used in dentistry to eliminate pain.
yeah, 100 years ago, OK, you qualified it with "Was". It's still used routinely in ENT Procedures as it's the only Local Anesthetic that is also a Vasoconstrictor, handy when you're lasering Nose Thingies.
Back in the day a classmate was sparing in the dojo and would up with a broken nose when a punch was not pulled. Never was able to get the blood stains out of my car but when he came out of the emergency room he was grinning from ear to ear. At least to the next day when it wore off.
Talk about your "First World Problems" A year ago we were worried about "45" getting shivved (is that how you say it? "Shivved") at Rikers, and Cums-a-lot and Tampon Tim mandating Trannies in the Olympics, Now we're complaining some Lame-ass Talk show host gets to keep his job, But Stephen Millers really off his game, I'd have had Dominos deliver Sausage Pizzas to every single Moose-lum Ambassador at the UN.
Can't wait for the Cums-a-lot/Pete Booty Judge D-bate in 2028.
Witches placed a curse on Charlie Kirk https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/megyn-kelly-charlie-kirk-curse-wife-erika-b2832943.html
https://www.facebook.com/MegynKelly/videos/megyn-kelly-reveals-erika-kirk-was-shaken-by-jezebels-article-about-placing-a-cu/1575840400491295/
Evil is real -- playing with it is like playing with radioactive materials without knowing what you are doing...
She turned me into a newt!
You seem to have gotten better.
Dr. Ed wishes he could have personally executed Bridget Bishop. Preferably by snowplow. Dr. Ed knows evil when he sees it!
Just an over-share comment of import to no one (not even myself);
I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich yesterday for the first time in at least two decades.*
I went to get milk and eggs, which are always at the back for good retail reasons, and happened to walk down the jelly/jam/preserves aisle. I noticed them without much thought until I also saw the peanut butter. I started to imagine how many PB&Js I ate during my preteens and teens. It was as much a staple as sodee pop and bananas. It was either a PB&J or a zapped Tyson breaded mystery meat patty with ketchup after school and before football/baseball practice and piano/trumpet lessons; five days a week without fail all year.
After picking up the dairy items and on the stroll back through memory lane (aisle 7), you’re damn right I picked up some PB and jelly.
Once home it’s clear the tradition and ritual of at least two whole generations was not forgotten.
We, my brother and I, always made them like mommy. Put the PB and grape jelly in a bowl and combine, adding more jelly or PB, until it has the perfect color and every bite is perfectly consistent. Toast the bread to just golden for the crunchy texture. Place approximately a cup and a half—not an exaggeration—of PB&J between two pieces of the toasted bread and enjoy one of the greatest culinary inventions in the history of mankind—also not an exaggeration.
Last month I went to One Thirty Five Prime Steakhouse in Waco (Hill Country’s version of Ruth’s Chris) for my birthday. I promise you: I enjoyed that PB&J more than the ribeye. I swear I did!! Maybe because I eat steak all the time. Maybe taste buds are affected by memories. I don’t know, but I’d choose the PB&J today if I could. Wait, I can! At least until the wifey finds the grape jelly hidden behind the spicy Whataburger ketchup she never touches.
*We cut out superfluous sugar and replaced it with artificial sweeteners. I can’t stand any artificial sweeteners. As a result I drink unsweetened tea, black coffee, and don’t eat sweets—at least at home where the missus can see.
PS: I am bored. I am digitizing a friend’s home movies made by her grandparents. The 1/4” reel to reels weren't bad. They are just 3min a piece. But now I’m into the 90s 8mm camcorders. The horror!! For God’s sake people, DO SOMETHING INTERESTING. Same with pictures. Photo after photo times 1000 of people looking at the camera with the “say cheese” face is the worst. No wonder nobody actually pulls out anything but old baby and child prints.
We cut out superfluous sugar and replaced it with artificial sweeteners. I can’t stand any artificial sweeteners. As a result I drink unsweetened tea, black coffee, and don’t eat sweets—at least at home where the missus can see.
Go down to your local farmer's market and buy some jam. Peanut butter is even easier. You can grind your own at the grocery store. In some domains it's hard to avoid artificial sweeteners, but PB&Js are not one of them.
Thanks, but even homemade jam still has tons of sugar.
I do have sugar in moderation, I just try to stay away from the intentionally sweet stuff. Diabetes runs in both sides of my family. In my 50s and no problems as of yet.
Ground peanuts without salt and jam without sugar...what in the hell is the point of living with such nonsense?
All things in moderation and you won't go wrong. Much prefer to take my chance with sugar (in moderation) than with artificial sweeteners.
Oh, absolutely. I do have sugar in moderation. I just try to stay away from the stuff with a lot of sugar.
Wow, I have never heard of a PB&J made that way. Never blended, and never on toast. I'll have to try it someday. We used to just spread the PB on one slice of white bread, the jelly on another, and slap 'em together. Might cut it in half, or in quarters, but that's it.
To keep the jelly from soaking through the bread you butter up both slices with peanut butter and spread the jelly in the middle. Now do fluffernutters.
Not that I have ever purchased it but you can buy jars of premixed PB&J at Walmart among other places.
"He dreamed of creating a peanut-grape hybrid. One plant, one sandwich."
and never on toast.
When I was in elementary school my mother z"l used to pack PB&J sandwiches in my lunchbox every day. She always used toast because otherwise the sandwich would get really soggy by lunchtime.
my mother z"l
Was she married to née Prince, perhaps? Or did you just leak the first three characters of one of your passwords?
[True story -- there's an order out there somewhere that I'd have to work a bit to find, that has what looked like the full password of the clerk that had last edited the order inserted right at the beginning of the case caption.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorifics_for_the_dead_in_Judaism#Of_blessed_memory
Ah, I didn't K the IYKYK. Same boat here -- my condolences.
Thanks, and to you too. It was a while ago — an unbelievably long time ago, when I stop to think about it — but this is the yahrzeit (anniversary), so it weighs more heavily now.
Wrong place.
Oh, remember how baseless it was to investigate Bolton?
FBI says it found classified documents in John Bolton’s DC office
"FBI agents executing a search warrant at former national security adviser John Bolton’s downtown Washington office last month turned up documents marked as classified, according to a court filing released Tuesday.
A description of the documents gathered in the Aug. 22 search suggested they included materials that referenced weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. mission to the United Nations and records related to the U.S. government’s strategic communications."
"An attorney for Bolton, Abbe Lowell, said the records were cleared for Bolton’s use years ago and many of them were more than two decades old.
“These materials, many of which are documents that had been previously approved as part of a pre-publication review for Amb. Bolton’s book, were reviewed and closed years ago,” Lowell said in a statement.
“These are the kinds of ordinary records, many of which are 20 years old or more, that would be kept by a 40-year career official who served at the State Department, as an Assistant Attorney General, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the National Security Advisor. Specifically, the documents with classification markings from the period 1998-2006 date back to Amb. Bolton’s time in the George W. Bush Administration,” Lowell added. “An objective and thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton.”"
I'm having trouble figuring out how that could be, when he lost his security clearance most of a year ago...
The claim was that it was a politically motivated hit-job against one of Trump's critics, not necessarily that it was baseless. Recent experience seems to show that if you go looking for some classified documents from a senior government official you're likely to find some. If I were such an official, I'd probably dig through my own files and make sure I didn't at this point, though.
"t was a politically motivated hit-job"
So, I haven't been following all this stuff, but what did you think about the investigations and charges against Trump? Just wondering, for context.
I'd say the New York cases are probably in a similar camp, and it's unfortunate that those are the only ones that went to trial. They roughly look like the mortgage fraud cases Trump is encouraging his administration to bring.
The documents case seemed extremely solid, as it was based on Trump's active attempt to keep classified documents once they were asked for back, as well as to cover up his attempts to do so. The federal election interference case also seemed strong. The Georgia case was probably an overreach (especially the RICO framing), although to use ducksalad's useful distinction below, it was going after behavior that was wrong as opposed to just being illegal.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along: That the essence of selective prosecution isn't that the conduct is really legal, it's that you're prosecuting where you wouldn't normally.
And 'important people' normally get cut an absurd amount of slack in this area, if you strictly enforced, you could put half of DC in the slammer.
Apparently Bolton thought that he was still an "important person". He has less excuse for that than Trump had.
The problem with Trump was always that he actively hid them and lied about it even once they were subpoenaed. Not that he had them in the first place.
It's not selective prosecution to only prosecute the people who do what Trump did.
Actively hid them in a dedicated room that the feds knew the exact location of, because he'd secured it on their advice...
Actively hid materials he was negotiating with the National Archives about the status of.
Yes. You're getting it now!
("Negotiating" is pretty funny. No no officer, this car isn't stolen, I'm "negotiating" with its rightful owner so who knows, could be anybody's!)
with its rightful owner
Nononono... YESTERDAY was National Question-Begging Day. Qualika already stole your thunder.
Time will tell, but I think the way to reconcile the issue might be the difference between 'marked as classified' and actually classified.
If the docs have been declassified in the intervening period, the lawyer's correct AND the FBI's carefully worded statement is as well.
The FBI's intended implication isn't, but they kinda suck these days so that's to be expected.
Last year we found out that damn near every major player in DC that got questioned on the matter had classified documents improperly retained at home. In no case, including Trump's, was there any real belief that any of them were going to sell them to foreign intelligence or use the information in some treasonous way. It's all BS gotcha.
It also seems like damn near every major player in DC has called multiple different houses their primary residence on various documents. Turns out even an investigator's own family was doing it. AFAICT there are no actual banks complaining they were the victims of mortgage fraud. And yes, the Trump mortgage charges were BS gotcha too.
Everyone needs to think up something new and interesting to play gotcha on. You know, real crimes with specific victims. Classified documents and mortgage papers are boring. It's too tiring to pretend to be outraged about this petty stuff.
PS Campaign finance is used up also. I just don't care whether someone paid a consultant, charged a meal, or even bought off a porn star out of campaign money versus personal money.
Give us something that's actually *wrong* as opposed to merely *illegal*.
Lets hold the aggressor's feet to the fire first, before adopting the old norm of the governing class having different rules than the rest of us.
Bolton is toast. Prison time awaits, absent a plea deal.
You're more obsessed with scalps than any other poster on here, and that's saying something.
Work on not finding fulfillment by cheering for authoritarianism-mediated misery to be visited on notable people who don't share your politics.
I'm no Bolton fan, but I manage not to be a sicko about it.
You started this thread crowing about Peter Strzok. Later on, you crowed about Bolton. Then Comey. And then, of course, a bunch of federal employees you know nothing about.
No one else among your MAGA compatriots did this - your spite is special.
I really do think you'd benefit a lot from therapy.
Yashar Ali @yashar 1h The White House has placed a photo of an auto-pen signature instead of a portrait of former President Biden on the “Presidential Walk of Fame”
There is a viral video going around of a British father telling his daughter that they are a Christian Family and not to marry a Muslim.
How long do yall think his prison sentence will be? 20 years?
In California, that new law he would only ve fined up to $1M but would avoid jail time.
Paradox of Free Speech. We can only have true Free Speech of we criminalized all speech we dont like.
"Governor Newsom Press Office @GovPressOffice Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today.
You’re welcome, America."
WTF is wrong with Newsom? I hope the secret service investigates this.
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1969420779793367518
That's from September 20.
On September 20, Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and The No Vigilantes Act.
That's what this was about. Not whatever Newsmax fed you.
1. What does that mean? How about some context? 2. Why do you always have to make it about the other person, as in "Not whatever Newsmax fed you." Can't you have a civil discussion?
That is the context - after that tweet he signed some laws that were directed at constraining ICE.
I don't know where you got the story, but I don't think it was Newsom's Press Office twitter from 4 days ago.
You have a source; you hid it. I Googled, actually, and found the most prominent story citing that tweet in the past 24 hours was Newsmax. And lets face it: you're their target audience.
You post terrible uncivil things all the time; I don't think you understand what civil means.
"at constraining ICE."
Like the attacks today were aimed "at constraining ICE."??
The shooter only shot innocent people. No ICE thugs were hurt.
See, this is what pisses me off.
I was saying nothing of the kind, and you come in and just say 'hey so you kinda support murder then, eh?'
That's bullshit well poisoning at best, and in keeping with the 'your words make you an accessory to killing conservatives.'
I don't much care for this trend among the MAGA asshole commentariat here.
"Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her family was shaken by a cryptic post, taken by many as a threat directed at her, issued through California Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office.
The post was short: "Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You're welcome, America."
But it had enough of a potentially dangerous angle to create a reaction from Bill Essayli, acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.
"We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials. I've referred this matter to @SecretService and requested a full threat assessment," Essayli posted on X.
The Hill reported that Noem told Fox News that the post from Newsom's office was taken to be "menacing" and "panicked" her family and friends.
"It was cryptic, and it was really menacing," she said. "It immediately panicked my family and friends." Within minutes of the post being visible, Noem said she even got calls from her children: "Are you OK, Mom? Are you fine?" she said.
Noem said her family knows what it is like to experience threatening situations after politicians say too much and too publicly."
Yes, it was taken as a threat.
You appear to be quoting Newsmax here. Maybe don't accuse me of bad faith right before you provide evidence I'm right.
Anyhow, I gave the context. Which was not at all hard to find. And clear to anyone in politics.
Noem is performing to make hay. So is some other MAGA hangers-on. This is the bed you made; no credibility because Trump's insisted on it.
She's not doing a very good job, but you're just the sucker to fall for it, it seems.
Let me ask you: did Newsom's press office indeed make that statement? Or, are you saying it didn't?
How would you interpret it if it was directed at you?
You're reaching for a QED I already exploded, chief.
Snowflakes
Meh, it sounds like she was overreacting. It was clearly not a threat, especially given that Newsome was talking about the blatantly unconstitutional laws he just signed.
Noem should have just responded, "That dog don't hunt."
+1
Newsom's statement was strategic ambiguity: something he could claim he meant innocently, but that also clearly conveyed a threat while omitting specifics.
Oooh ... sounds sinister. Tell us more ... Better yet just re-read twelveinch's comment.
So Gestapo Barbie is also a Karen. Shocks exactly no one.
Lord! You're exploding in anger over this stale MAGA conspiracy that was debunked days ago. I mean, I have an easy enough time victimizing you hayseeds...but now you hayseeds are victimizing yourselves and putting me out of business
The truly sad thing is that every single one of them is like Charlie Brown, and the sources they keep credulously believing is Lucy with the football.
"C'mon Publius. I have this clickbait that will anger your blood. How about you come read it ... and get all angry, and then post about it!"
"But LUCY... the last 10,000 times I did that, it turned out that it was completely wrong!"
"Publius ... c'mon now. Look at it ... it's exactly what you want to believe is true. You know you want to take it and post it somewhere and be outraged, right?"
"Hmm... okay, I guess this time it will be different...."
It's never different. But they keep coming back for more.
I'm really not sure that "Newsom is gunning hard to out-troll Trump and you FELL for it, neener neener!" is the sort of calm, level-headed discourse I've come to expect and truly appreciate from you over the years. Are you ok?
The real question is why it's taken us this long to figure out how to out-troll Trump... especially given how gullible the right is. Q, 4, 8, chan! Newsmax, Fox, Sinclair 'n OAN!
Don't forget the 4Chan training facility... 2Chan, AKA "Reason.com."
Seriously, read a few of the non-Volokh areas of the site; they make Publius seem rather pleasant and intelligent.
Yeah, don't know if you saw that the broader Reason crowd tipped JasonT20 over the edge last week. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/19/friday-open-thread-38/?comments=true#comment-11215595. They put the sharp in sharp-elbowed.
Let's hope they give Comey the Navarro or Stone treatment when they perp walk him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o
Knife attack against Koran burner justified as the perpetrator protecting his religion, given no jail time. Proper sentence?
The Koran burner got jail time.
That's insane.
I wonder why they are soft pn violent criminals.
No, he didn't. Are you a half troll half retard Lex, or just a total retard?
If a Christian attacked a bible burner with a knife they would get a sentence enhancement.
Contrast the actual knife attack punishment with tweet crime:
"In October 2024, UK woman Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred in a post on X (formerly Twitter). The post was made in July 2024 following the murders of three girls in Southport, after Connolly viewed false information online suggesting the killer was an asylum seeker. She pleaded guilty to the charge in September 2024."
A counterfactual argument straight out of Tommy Robinson's anti-Muslim fearmongering.
And, of course, complaining about speech restrictions while supporting the US regime's anti-speech agenda to the hilt.
I prefer the US speech regime, which we've now shredded and have no leg to stand on. But hey MAGA can talk and lie all they want, which is all you care about.
You got no consistency, just a side you root for.
Facts aren't fearmongering, El Gaslightr0.
>I prefer the US speech regime, which we've now shredded and have no leg to stand on.
Are you talking about that law passed by California Sarcastr0's recently?
How many ICE deaths will it take for Democrat politicos to stop calling for people to attack ICE?
The answer is always 42.
Also, your sentence supra applies an apostrophe in Sarcastr0's name (correct usage) which renders it gibberish. If you had properly omitted it, the sentence would have been seen as clumsy or oddly framed, but not grammatically incorrect. D+ for this series of posts. Thanks for posting!
Well, it was a white male gun owner shooting at immigrant detainees. Let's do the math...
Nobody has called for people to attack ICE.
My turn. How many dead wives will it take for Christian clergymen to stop marrying women into subservience to Lex?
I'd have asked how many Venezuelan deaths it will take for MAGA to stop calling for people to support Trump.
Have any concern for those Venezuelan's dying in Venezuela?
Yes, of course — which is why I oppose Trump's efforts to send people back there! And I'm pretty sure that randomly blowing up boats doesn't do anything for the people living there.
Lawyers for Kimberly Jean Bailey Wallace Davis McIntyre Davis have filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the damages award against her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, contrary to the requirement of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). https://lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2025/250724Petition-WritofCertiorari(asfiled).pdf Among the questions presented is whether Obergefell should be overturned.
The Court has requested a response to the petition, which is due not later than October 8, 2025.
Politico has published an article entitled "5 Reasons the Supreme Court Might Change Its Mind on Same-Sex Marriage." https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/22/same-sex-marriage-might-be-unsafe-00568474
I have been predicting for years that an effort like this would be in the works. Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly. Busybodies gotta meddle.
With Harlan Thomas proclaiming miscegenation is next, we can annul them pesky marriages of Kamala, Vance and Trump.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is the only substantive due process decision that Clarence Toady does not want to see overruled.
I suppose that in his world, affirmative action and substantive due process are really crappy ideas for anyone whose first name isn't Clarence or whose last name isn't Thomas.
At an earlier stage of his life, if he had married a white woman in the South, he would have quickly learned the difference between a lynching and a Senate hearing.
"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is the only substantive due process decision that Clarence Toady does not want to see overruled."
He said in one of his dissents that he wants to revisit Loving. I mean...c'mon! I've always said that Thomas hates his own skin. It's why he married white. It's why he only associates with white donors and puts his relatives under white supervision. He's opposed every affirmative action except the ones that got him in power.
"He said in one of his dissents that he wants to revisit Loving. I mean...c'mon! I've always said that Thomas hates his own skin. It's why he married white. It's why he only associates with white donors and puts his relatives under white supervision. He's opposed every affirmative action except the ones that got him in power."
I don't recall that dissent. I do recall his execrable Dobbs concurrence where he called for Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, ___, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 2301 (2022) (Thomas, J., concurring).
He is a self-hating house negro -- Steven Wallace on the GOP's Candyland Plantation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAscXQKLSs
I'm pretty sure you do understand, at some level, the difference between thinking the Court shouldn't have done something, and thinking that the Court did it in the wrong way.
Does anyone think it is possible - if properly coordinated - to achieve a nation-wide strike of all workers in all sectors for a couple of days?
if properly coordinated
Is this one of those "assume a spherical cow" deals?
I think the late-night hosts could probably coordinate it
LOL....they probably barely reach 2% of Americans. <1% without Gutfield.
What's your definition of "all"?
If you mean other than the scabs, and then define 99% of the population as scabs, sure. You could get 1% of the population to join - if properly coordinated.
No. After decades of union busting in the US it's hard enough to organise a local strike in a particular factory/work site. There is zero chance of the entire country going on strike. And that's without even taking into account the fact that Trump loves the poorly educated, because many of them voted for him.
In other news, three ICE detainees were shot from a rooftop. Two were killed. Bullets left at the scene had “anti-ICE etched on them. My Crystal ball, on loan from Sac, tells me Kimmel’s monologue will go something like “do you see MAGA running around trying to point their fingers at anybody other than MAGA? I don’t mean to imply MAGA should point their fingers at themselves selves. No. Never, ever, ever. If you misunderstand me, I apologize for your confusion.” Whether he starts crying or not is unclear
I do get the distinct impression that a lot of the MAGA people on this website have begun looking eagerly for some event that will be an excuse to do something drastic.
His vibes are quaking again.
You mean all the name calling by prog pols against ICE agents spurring on people like today’s shooter? Or is just shooting three people while aiming at ICE agents not drastic enough?
Shooting Kirk not drastic enough?
Trans shooting up schools not drastic enough?
Seems we are the calm ones in the rhetoric. We sound nothing like the left
As Gutfeld keeps saying when you demonize people to the point of calling them fascists and Hitler, what measures should people take to stop it?
We are finding out.
It hasn't even been three months since a gang of Antifa members ambushed an ICE facility in Alvarado, less than 50 miles from Dallas, shooting a guard in the neck on July 4th.
But the gaslighters here insist that the right are the people we need to watch out for.
Michael P, what are those "Antifa members'" names? And how did you divine their supposed "Antifa" affiliation?
Correction: the Antifa goons shot a local police officer, not an ICE guard.
https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2025-09-23/ice-alvarado-prairieland-detention-center-shooting-johnson-county-wichita-falls
As it happens, I just came across this piece via Twitter yesterday, calling into question some of the narrative.
https://thebarbedwire.com/2025/09/24/new-details-july-4-ice-attack-holes-feds-case/
I do not take seriously the argument in the piece that the family of one of the arrestees doesn't think she could/would do that; that's something family members often say and has little weight. But the article does point out several discrepancies — some of which are in the article to which you link, as well. Of course, those discrepancies don't call into question that a cop was shot (though never rule out friendly fire; cops are notoriously bad shots), but they do challenge the narrative about some Antifa terror cell organizing an ambush of ICE. Conclusions all tentative, but it sounds plausible that it was just a lone extremist rather than a plot.
"Several discrepancies" that amount to members of a criminal conspiracy being upset that they're facing charges for their participation in the same. They're discovering the drawbacks of participating in a group that is all about violent resistance to the government and encouraging members to plot their own specific forms of add-on violence. They're lucky to not be facing criminal murder charges thanks to their shooter friend(s).
Michael P, the article that you link doesn't refer to Antifa at all.
Ctrl-F is your friend. Why can't you man up and admit you are talking out your ass?
"As Gutfeld keeps saying when you demonize people to the point of calling them fascists and Hitler, what measures should people take to stop it?"
So you're saying gay people have a legitimate reason to retaliate against the hate?
Lordy, I love shutting down conversations.
Sorry if I don’t respond according to your time frame. It looks like you gave me less than hour to respond before you declared you shut down the conversation.
EDIT: I waited an entire 60 sec. I guess I’m the one who is shutting down conversations. Yea me!!
What prominent Republican has come anywhere close to calling gays something like Hitler?
Be specific. I don’t necessarily need links. I can do my own search. Just a name and few key words. I’ve can name a whole hell of a lot of Dems. For every two prominent republicans you name, I will name three progs.
Oh shut the fuck up. You act like Nazis, we're going to call you Nazis. You just did a big funerial political rally where everyone but the widow talked about a crackdown on your politician opposition.
You claim calling you a Nazi is enabling violence, we're going to call you Nazis again because you're just did a Nazi thing again. Doubly so because your performative disapproval in service of anti-speech authoritarianism pisses me off.
Did you see or read Miller's speech at the funeral rally? If you want some demonization of the opposition, with some ethnic nationalism thrown in, I've seen nothing like it in my lifetime. Though I have on the history channel when they talked about Goebels!
And now MAGA is posting on every bit of violence that happens in this very violent nation, insisting a liberal Antifa did it regardless of the facts, and then saying Something Should Be Done.
Are you feeling that pre-Kristallnacht excitement yet? Sure you are! You and Michael and Riva and Bob cannot contain yourselves!
Well THAT escalated quickly. Apparently you indeed can't name a single "prominent Republican [who] has come anywhere close to calling gays something like Hitler."
Wow.
Really feeling the "Yes, these ARE people we can feel good about assassinating!" vibes, aren't you?
The sheer magnitude of the jerk (the third derivative kind, though the other also works pretty well) made me suspect there's something else going on closer to home. Now seeing the prospect of mass governmental firings, this makes a lot more sense.
I guess I can see him taking the prospect of RIF in the bureaucracy personally, yeah.
You're doing the Nazi thing I was talking about. Where you take speech and say 'that's kinda like assasination.'
No, it's not. Saying it is acts as an excuse to crackdown on speech.
Like a Nazis.
"Speech (I don't like) is violence!" has been a left-wing thing for years now. I don't think the Nazis actually felt the need for that sort of excuse.
Up above Jazzizhep asked, "What prominent Republican has come anywhere close to calling gays something like Hitler?"
And you just EXPLODED. Seriously, what's up with that?
Yes, I've noted how MAGA has become the satirical leftists they once made up/nutpicked to get mad at.
Miller is more Goebbels than Hitler, but that last speech is pretty hard to distinguish.
Yeah, I'm irritated by the 'don't call us Nazis or we'll do Nazi things to speech.'
Yeah, I'm irritated
If that post was just "irritated," maybe we should all go get preemptive protective orders just in case someday you and your buddies actually get massively pissed.
"Yeah, I'm irritated by the 'don't call us Nazis or we'll do Nazi things to speech."
Says the guy who's OK with the government punishing people for wearing t-shirts that say that there are two genders.
So, that would be a “no, I can’t name any prominent republicans calling gays Hitler.”
First the lefties wanted poor, disempowered brown people to pick their crops. Now lefties shoot them like fish in a barrel. (I'm sorry, that unpersons the decedents. Now lefties shoot them like detainees in a transport van.) Why do lefties hate poor, disempowered brown people so much?
You mentioned twice that libs are shooting brown people
Related to this: JD Vance described the Dallas ICE murders as "an attack on law enforcement". Matt Yglesias got his panties in a twist over that, writing "they can't describe what's actually happening accurately."
Apparently Yglesias thinks that someone with an "anti-ICE" message and murderous bent ackchually has it in for the poor, disempowered brown people rather than ICE. Why does he agree that lefties hate poor, disempowered brown people so much?
As far as I can tell, they're really going with "dude spraying bullets at an ICE building and van from afar, all of which ended up hitting detainees rather than agents, obviously must have intended that exact result."
The mind boggles at exactly where to start on this one, but if you really just have it in for illegal immigrants, why in the world would you choose to camp out at a [checks notes] ICE facility -- where any detainees there are already being dealt with, and your spray of bullets also puts at risk the agents doing the thing you want done with illegal immigrants -- rather than just going down to your local Home Depot parking lot and having at it?
Occam has barely gotten over the mass affronts over the political leanings of Charlie Kirk's shooter and the cause of Kimmel's suspension, and now we're going to break his heart with THIS?
I guess Trump heard me and is preparing plans to burn it all down:
"The White House budget office is instructing federal agencies to prepare reduction-in-force plans for mass firings during a possible government shutdown, specifically targeting employees who work for programs that are not legally required to continue.
The Office of Management and Budget move to permanently reduce the government workforce if there is a shutdown, outlined in a memo shared with POLITICO ahead of release to agencies tonight, escalates the stakes of a potential shutdown next week.
In the memo, OMB told agencies to identify programs, projects and activities where discretionary funding will lapse on Oct. 1 and no alternative funding source is available. For those areas, OMB directed agencies to begin drafting RIF plans that would go beyond standard furloughs, permanently eliminating jobs in programs not consistent with President Donald Trump’s priorities in the event of a shutdown."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/24/white-house-firings-shutdown-00579909
Schumer needs to go. What an embarrassment.
It's beyond sad that as Trump hurriedly destroys America, all we've got standing in his way are Schumer and Jeffries. Oh how I weep for freedom.
FAFO for Schumer and Jeffries. Go ahead, shut it down and throw tens of thousands out of a job (which will be eliminated).
Who will gold plate the Oval Office if the Federal government is shut down?
LOL, who am I kidding? Some Trump "donor" will gladly pay for that to be done out of their own pocket.
Shutting down the government IS very much throwing the current administration into the briar patch, isn't it?
I assume they hope that a lot of the persuadable middle want the government to be bigger, and will punish Republicans for not going along with petulant demands from a legislative minority. I presume they are ignoring their internal polling data, because I can't imagine how they think that's a common belief amount the US political middle.
I would assume that they're relying on concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, as usual. Probably with an extra serving of deliberately imposed costs.
"Shut down" the government, and the people benefiting from the spending feel an immediate hit. The people for whom it's just a cost don't notice ANYTHING right away, it's not like the government spends less, and your next paycheck gets a line item on it, "Withholding refunded on account of shutdown". (Though that WOULD be a spiffy idea!)
And, 'shut down' the government, and usually there's a large amount of "Washington monument syndrome" going on, the shutdown deliberately managed to enhance the immediate suffering, such as shutting down self-funded national parks.
They are however facing a new problem on both fronts.
First, the Trump administration would be perfectly happy to fire the asses of anybody who tried the Washington Monument ploy, and everybody knows it.
Second, with government spending so elevated above historical norms at this point, the concentrated benefits aren't really all that concentrated anymore.
And, finally, do to that absurdly elevated spending level, I think it's possible that the GOP will have a bit more spine than usual.
But we'll see about that, betting on the GOP having spine has always been foolish in the past.
Imagine someone looking at the current US regime and believing they oppose budget deficits. You're hilarious, Brett!
Nah, they don't have the spine to actually balance the budget, as such, but they'd be content to run deficits at a lower level of spending than the Democrats demand.
Spine doesn't have anything to do with it. The Regime has plenty of spine in pursuing its actual goals. Reducing the deficit simply isn't one of them.
I would assume that they're relying on concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, as usual...
No no it's much stupider that that. Schumer is feeling the heat for being such a Trump pushover. He finally realized that "strongly worded letters" aren't gonna cut it. So this is the opportunity he grabbed on to. He's trying to demonstrate some teeth.
That's it.
Let's hope his dentures fall out before he hands Trump everything he's ever wanted and more.
Wait, who is shutting down the government in this scenario? And how is it not the party that controls the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court?
Because the shutdown occurs solely due to the minority filibustering the act to keep the government running?
But thanks for demonstrating the sort of sophistry necessary to pretend that ALL government shutdowns, without exception, are the fault of Republicans.
No, government shutdowns are typically blamed on the party that holds the White House, and more broadly on the party that controls at least one of a) the White House, b) the Senate, or c) the House of Representatives and is using that control to vote against. Blaming a party that controls zero of the branches of government for a government shutdown requires some quantum mechanics-level spin.
"Blaming a party that controls zero of the branches of government for a government shutdown requires some quantum mechanics-level spin."
Obviously they had ENOUGH control to filibuster, didn't they? Why are you so determined to pretend that this shutdown would occur even if Democrats didn't do anything?
Your English is outstanding, but I think the word you want is credit, not blame.
Report: James Comey to be indicted for lying to Congress
I'll be curious to see if there is a big raid with CNN and MSDNC standing by, breathlessly.
Looking forward to seeing the perp walk and mug shot.
I don’t understand this perspective on multiple levels, but what I will say is don’t start wanking too hard over this little humiliation fantasy you have going. It’s very possible this gets no billed. Did you know Lindsey Halligan has never tried a criminal case?
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Not everyone has to start with the former FBI director though, right?
Anyways, I encourage you Comey humiliation fantasy types to think about just who is running to the WSJ and ABC and providing anonymous quotes like these:
“Trump has pushed Bondi repeatedly in private in recent days to bring charges against Comey, even as she has expressed reservations about the case, people familiar with the discussions said.”
“According to sources, Halligan’s deputy — a prosecutor who was briefly assigned to lead the office just a day before Trump appointed Halligan to the high-profile position — has also expressed reservations about bringing the politically charged case.”
"Report: James Comey to be indicted for lying to Congress"
Here is a transcript of Comey's testimony: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testimony-on-russia-investigation-transcript-september-30
What word or group of words do you contend that he then did not believe to be true? And how is that matter material? That is, how did the testimony in question have "a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed"? United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 839 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Leon-Reyes, 177 F.3d 816, 820 (9th Cir. 1999).
No, that's not the report. The report is that Trump wants Comey indicted, and that Trump's handpicked thug US Attorney who has never prosecuted a case wants to oblige Trump. But the reports are that the evidence is not remotely there and there's major doubt whether they could secure an indictment. (Remember: it's the grand jury, not Trump or his henchmen, that indicts.)
When I was on a petit jury, we were forbidden to read the newspaper (yes, it was a while ago!) unless it had been sanitized. My better half excised any coverage of the trial and saved them for after the trial concluded. I knew from the hole in the page that there must have been another article, but not what it said.
Grand jurors serve a long term, I think? What restrictions are they put under? When the Comey case comes up, will they have been reading about all the drama beforehand?
Is there anything that would prevent them from just seating a grand jury repeatedly until one of them would comply?
Have to be quick since the clock runs out on Sept. 30.
But the reports are that the evidence is not remotely there and there's major doubt whether they could secure an indictment.
Well, that one aged like fine milk. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/read-full-text-james-comey-indictment-pdf-rcna233818
I wonder if Trump is trying to distract from Homan's bribes or the Epstein files.
There's a difficult one. (Quoting the press release, because the full AG Opinion won't be published for another hour or so.)
Four professional athletes who infringed the anti-doping rules challenge, before an Austrian court, the fact that their names, the sporting discipline concerned, the duration of their exclusion from sporting events and the reasons for that exclusion were or were going to be published online, that is to say, on the websites of the Austrian independent anti-doping agency (NADA Austria) and the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (the ADR). In Austria, such publication is provided for by law. It aims, first, to deter athletes from committing infringements of the anti-doping rules and thus to prevent doping in sport. Second, it aims to prevent circumvention of the antidoping rules by informing all persons likely to sponsor or engage the athlete in question that he or she is suspended. The four athletes concerned submit that that publication contravenes the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In that context, the Austrian court asked the Court of Justice to interpret the GDPR. In his Opinion, formulated following an in-depth analysis of the wording, the context and the objectives of the GDPR, Advocate General Dean Spielmann has serious doubts as to the need for the publication at issue in the light of the objectives pursued. In his view, publishing the relevant name, but limited to the relevant bodies and sports federations, accompanied, for example, by pseudonymised publication on the internet, would make it possible to achieve both those objectives in a way that is less prejudicial to the protection of personal data and more consistent with the principle of data minimisation. Furthermore, the combination of the various elements of the publication (reference to a name, unlimited scope, systematic and automatic nature of the publication) is liable, in certain circumstances, to result in an interference with the personal data protection rights of the individuals concerned such that it does not meet the requirements of a proper balancing of the different interests involved. The Advocate General is therefore of the view that an obligation to publish personal data, such as that at issue, is permissible only in so far as, having regard to the objectives of deterrence and avoidance of circumvention of the anti-doping rules, it remains proportionate, in particular as regards the scope and duration of publication, in the light of the specific circumstances at issue. It is for the Austrian court to determine whether that is the case.
Four professional athletes who infringed the anti-doping rules challenge, before an Austrian court, the fact that their names, the sporting discipline concerned, the duration of their exclusion from sporting events and the reasons for that exclusion were or were going to be published online, that is to say, on the websites of the Austrian independent anti-doping agency (NADA Austria) and the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (the ADR).
In Austria, such publication is provided for by law. It aims, first, to deter athletes from committing infringements of the anti-doping rules and thus to prevent doping in sport. Second, it aims to prevent circumvention of the antidoping rules by informing all persons likely to sponsor or engage the athlete in question that he or she is suspended.
The four athletes concerned submit that that publication contravenes the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In that context, the Austrian court asked the Court of Justice to interpret the GDPR.
In his Opinion, formulated following an in-depth analysis of the wording, the context and the objectives of the GDPR, Advocate General Dean Spielmann has serious doubts as to the need for the publication at issue in the light of the objectives pursued.
In his view, publishing the relevant name, but limited to the relevant bodies and sports federations, accompanied, for example, by pseudonymised publication on the internet, would make it possible to achieve both those objectives in a way that is less prejudicial to the protection of personal data and more consistent with the principle of data minimisation.
Furthermore, the combination of the various elements of the publication (reference to a name, unlimited scope, systematic and automatic nature of the publication) is liable, in certain circumstances, to result in an interference with the personal data protection rights of the individuals concerned such that it does not meet the requirements of a proper balancing of the different interests involved.
The Advocate General is therefore of the view that an obligation to publish personal data, such as that at issue, is permissible only in so far as, having regard to the objectives of deterrence and avoidance of circumvention of the anti-doping rules, it remains proportionate, in particular as regards the scope and duration of publication, in the light of the specific circumstances at issue. It is for the Austrian court to determine whether that is the case.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-09/cp250128en.pdf
Given that we Europeans don't do perp walks, this is a more difficult question than it will appear to my American friends. But I'm inclined to say that the AG got this wrong. Let's see what the court says in a couple of months.
Incidentally, Dean Spielmann has quite a CV, but is apparently not to good to accept an appointment as Advocate-General to the ECJ. Maybe it helps that the ECJ is in his native Luxembourg.
Appointed as a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France) in 2004, he successively became Section President in 2011, Vice-President in 2012, then President between 2012 and 2015. Mr Spielmann was appointed as a Judge at the General Court on 13 April 2016 and served as President of Chamber between 30 September 2019 and 6 October 2024. He has been an Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 2024.
Appointed as a Judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France) in 2004, he successively became Section President in 2011, Vice-President in 2012, then President between 2012 and 2015.
Mr Spielmann was appointed as a Judge at the General Court on 13 April 2016 and served as President of Chamber between 30 September 2019 and 6 October 2024.
He has been an Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 2024.
Is the privacy law at all affected by the standard requirement in sport that any athlete entering an event is required to consent to testing and its consequences?
Possibly. As Meta is discovering with its adventures in "pay or consent", whether consent is valid depends on the nature of the deal. If you rob someone at gunpoint they are arguably consenting to you taking all their money, but that still isn't going to cut it with a court. Consent under GDPR works the same way, but it hasn't been tested yet in the specific context of sports.
What has been litigated a lot in sports is the related question of whether the athlete has consented to having all disputes heard through arbitration (i.e. the CAS) instead of the regular courts. The case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU says that this consent is valid, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the regular courts has to be more intrusive than would be necessary in a regular arbitration case, because the athlete didn't really have the option of not accepting arbitration.
FYI there's an "interesting" situation in the US. A 60yo woman named Johnnie Reid refused to be tested after USATF masters indoor championships 2 1/2 years ago, She had just set a national record in the 60m dash - and I could tell from the live feed that she was a juicer. The reasons she gave for refusing the test were, first, she had a moral/religious objection to urinating in front of anyone else (as is required when tested) and second, she was shy and wouldn't accept the invasion of privacy.
Now she had consented to testing - as we all do - when she entered the meet. Normally a refusal results in immediate suspension - it's regarded as identical to a positive test, But there was no immediate suspension. However, she stopped competing in USATF meets. (She still competed at Senior Games, which recognise suspensions but don't themselves test.) Still, a year and a half later there was no news of any action. I asked an acquaintence who's a USATF official, what's happening? He said, "we don't talk about that." My guess is that she got lawyers involved, is trying to claim some bullshit religious exemption, and while the case is being "negotiated" she agreed not to compete at USATF meets.
Fiery and mostly violent protests, just like the left likes them. Well, FAFO.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/domestic-terrorist-sentenced-more-19-years-prison-firebombing-university-police-car
His defense wasn't that he didn't do it, but he was being targeted because he opposed Israel.
The Bay Area Jury strategy.
I'm not sure if attacking UC Berekely is slam-dunk leftist.
But you all are psyching yourself up to the point that doubt no longer enters into the equation.
Yeah, it's probably MAGA false flag, just like the building takeovers at Columbia, Harvard and the other Ivy's.
But I just know what he and his lawyer said:
"Last year, Goonan’s attorney Jeff Wozniak said the charges were part of a politicized investigation due to his client’s opposition to Israel. “It is an investigation focused on Mr. Goonan’s political beliefs in a free Palestine and against the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” the attorney said last year. “If charges are filed, Mr. Goonan’s legal team will aggressively fight the charges.”
The Department of Justice said Goonan admitted he had political motives for his violence.
“Goonan acknowledged that these attacks were inspired by Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, and that he called on others to attack property on Bay Area college campuses in support of Palestine,” the DOJ announced yesterday. “Goonan admitted that his conduct was designed to influence and affect the conduct of governments by intimidation and coercion and to retaliate against the governments of the United States and the State of California for their conduct.”
Do you sit up late at night thinking up the most ridiculous takes on the most obvious issues?
Attacking UC Berkely and being mad at the State of California for their...Israel policy? That's not left or right, in my book.
As I said, we're at a point where everything is of the left, no matter what.
Supposedly-former CIA employee stands up a front organization, masquerading as "media/news", to try to get the spook elected as governor. That's some next-level fake news and subversion of democracy.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/09/04/virginia-democrat-campaign-sets-facebook-page-appearing-independent-news-outlet/
There have been reports of Christians, convinced they'd be raptured, selling their cars and houses. If the day after they found themselves unaccountably unraptured, I assume that - unless it had been specified in the contracts - they're SOOL if they attempt to get their cars or houses back.
People who expect themselves to be raptured would not have any reason to liquidate their assets, unless they don't want to be raptured (camels, eyes of needles), or will have given the resulting money away (blessed are the poor) in which case they would have to claw back their charitable donations before reversing any sales.
Do you know how to discombobulate a believer in the Rapture?
Leave several pairs of empty shoes on the sidewalks along the route he ordinarily drives to work.
Meanwhile, in a country where they still think corruption is bad:
The former French president Nicolas Sarkozy said he would “sleep in jail but with my head held high” after receiving a five-year prison sentence for criminal conspiracy – the first time a former head of state has been sent to prison in modern French history. The verdict and sentencing followed a trial in which he and his aides were accused of making a corruption pact with the regime of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to receive funding for the 2007 French presidential election campaign. In a surprise ruling, the head judge, Nathalie Gavarino, handed down a special form of sentence that means Sarkozy, 70, will have to serve a prison term even if he appeals. She justified the conviction and sentencing on the grounds the offences were of “exceptional gravity” and “likely to undermine citizens’ trust.”
The former French president Nicolas Sarkozy said he would “sleep in jail but with my head held high” after receiving a five-year prison sentence for criminal conspiracy – the first time a former head of state has been sent to prison in modern French history.
The verdict and sentencing followed a trial in which he and his aides were accused of making a corruption pact with the regime of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to receive funding for the 2007 French presidential election campaign.
In a surprise ruling, the head judge, Nathalie Gavarino, handed down a special form of sentence that means Sarkozy, 70, will have to serve a prison term even if he appeals. She justified the conviction and sentencing on the grounds the offences were of “exceptional gravity” and “likely to undermine citizens’ trust.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/25/nicolas-sarkozy-found-guilty-of-criminal-conspiracy-in-libya-trial
MSNBC Analyst: ICE Needs to Change Policies, Tactics or There’ll Be More Violence
Fmr FBI Spook: Only Solution Is Give Terrorists What They Want
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/09/24/msnbcs-oleary-ice-needs-to-change-policies-tactics-or-therell-be-more-violence/
One might think you only read Breitbart.
The thing being left out is that ICE is not in uniform, and are themselves being violent.
That's gonna lead to some violence, yeah.
I doubt anyone actually cares, minds already having been made up, but I found this interesting:
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/the-ice-shooters-motive
This guy did a similar profile, sourced mainly by interviews, with people who knew Mr Robinson, as well.
I was right as usual.
Skipping over the unserious parts of the article (most notably the one that suggests that labeling bullets "ANTI-ICE" before shooting up an ICE facility just somehow exemplifies his charmingly ironic nature), this seems like a pretty succinct sum-up: "Their accounts paint the picture of someone with a vaguely libertarian bent who despised both major parties and politicians generally (including Trump) but who didn’t engage with politics beyond that."
You wanna take a shot at squaring that up with "right-wing terrorism" for us?
“You wanna take a shot at squaring”
No, not really. As I said, minds got made up on this pretty quick. I thought this piece provided a bit more texture than the “Anti-ICE bullet tells me everything I need to know” crowd. But YMMV, clearly.
Facts in evidence. Man carefully plans shooting at ICE facility. Man carries out carefully planned shooting at ICE facility. Man writes "anti-Ice" on cartridges. Man is unmarried. Man had no job and has not worked steadily since 2019. For months prior to the attack the man lived as a transient. Man conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the ‘Charlie Kirk Shot Video’ between 9/23-9/24 Man spends hours on apps tracking movements of ICE agents. Man leaves note that says "Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ’is there a sniper with AP [armor-piercing] rounds on that roof?'"
This is a strange reply to a post I made directly in reply to J4 and even quoted his prior post he was claiming to be correct.
But since you did reply: Additional "texture" is lovely, but even if we presume it's all correct as stated, which "texture" even remotely left open the possibility of him being a "right-wing terrorist"?
“This is a strange reply”
Oh please forgive me.
For replying to a post I didn't address to you as though I did, and then not answering a question I did directly pose to you?
Oh, what the heck -- lots of people in the world have real problems. Done.
Ah, the guy who decided journalistic integrity require he platform Luigi Mangione for assassinating a healthcare CEO, and whose career is perhaps most notable for changing his Twitter display name to things like "matt gaetz is a pedo".
He's not what most people would call a reliable or unbiased source.
As I said— some minds are already made up.
Attention Trumpists. I have received an update from HQ, please update your talking points with respect to Brendan Carr’s conduct.
“What people will say is, ‘Well, you know, didn’t the FCC commissioner put a tweet out that said something bad?’ … Compare that, the FCC Commissioner making a joke on social media”
It was all just a joke!!
Questions: 1) Are UFO space aliens "persons"? Are UFO space aliens protected by the murder laws?
2)Can a UFO space alien or a extraterrestial corporation, not incorporated by any Earth government own property?
3)Can I therefore, legally kill the alien and steal the saucer?
4)Under what authority does the US government seize UFO saucers?
5)If a UFO space alien gives me his saucer, can I legally secure my effect, i.e. the saucer, by hiding it where the US government can't find it?
I am not asking for legal advise. I do not, in fact, know any UFO space aliens, or have any reasonable opportunity to obtain a title to a UFO saucer. I ask because UFOs are a topic of current discussion and the public needs to know!
That's what someone who had a UFO and actually was seeking legal advice would say!
Are the UFO space aliens in the room with us now?
If you're in Texas and the alien was trespassing you should be fine.
Would it become possible for UFO space aliens to somehow set up a Earth corporation, in some country that does not do much checking, and then transfer their titles to their saucers to that corporation? This, as a way to protect their property rights in their saucers?
Would there be some creative way the UFO space aliens could file a flight plans for their UFO saucer expeditions?
Yes, Cayman Islands is popular for this.
Montana too, but other states are catching on.
“It’s a pleasure to be with President Erdoğan of Turkey, and we’ve been friends for a long time, actually, even for four years when I was in exile unfairly, as it turns out, rigged elections, you know,” Trump said on Thursday. “He knows about rigged elections better than anybody, but when I was in exile, we were still friends.”
OBAMA: It's fair to say that 80% of the world's problems involve old men hanging on who are afraid of death and insignificance, and they won't let go. They build pyramids, and they put their names on everything. They get very anxious about it.
I will admit I don't get it. Fear of death or compulsion to legacy doesn't seem to me to be driving our current bout of madness.
It's fair to say that 80% of the world's problems involve old men hanging on who are afraid of death and insignificance, and they won't let go.
Literally out of the mouth of a white-haired man who served his purpose and quickly faded into irrelevancy, and is apparently putting his tried and true provocative, divisive rhetoric band back together to try to get back in the news.
[Glad you've found something to settle you down.]
Another court opinion that capitalizes Black but not white.
Do you really want to be a White? Please. There's no such thing, hasn't that been the point all along?
Feel free to capitalize Yankee or Caucasian or Scandinavian or Confederate. But not White yuck. White is the equivalent of "person of color" which is also pretty yuck and isn't capitalized except via acronym rules.
That Yellow post made me see Red but then ultimately just feel Blue.
It's like announcing your child with "special needs," but instead of it being about a person, it's about a whole race.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Robby Soave | 11.26.2025 6:00 PM
Eric Boehm | 11.26.2025 4:15 PM
Jacob Sullum | 11.26.2025 2:00 PM
Christian Britschgi | 11.26.2025 1:25 PM
Eric Boehm | 11.26.2025 10:45 AM
