Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[grb]

Greetings from Venice (Italy)

[Mr. Bumble]

First to the post and from Italy no less (we all know it wouldn't be Venice FL).

[grb]

Well, I had six hours of time-zone help to get first in line.

[Moderation4ever]

Greeting back. Traveling or resident?

[grb]

Very much traveling. So much so that 20hrs of transit yesterday has me back at my desk today.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't drink the Water

[grb]

There was no problem drinking the water. I'm not sure I'd go swimming in it.

[AmosArch]

If you're not going to do your job as governor/mayor and will just sit back and allow federal property and people to be endangered with ANTIFA essentially acting as privateers on your behalf then the President has the right to intervene and protect his people. The people screeching about the President's actions as if it came out of nowhere on completely innocent ANTIFA sitting around minding their own business are truly reprehensible. They know all this but gaslight the false narrative anyway.

[Martinned]

WTF are you talking about?

[AmosArch]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15161993/portland-protests-trump-newsom-national-guard-rally-ice.html

[Martinned]

Yes, people are angry about the President sending in armed forces to persecute their fellow residents, and are protesting against the Regime.

There was a time when Americans had a right to free speech. Remember that? That was nice.

[AmosArch]

They can protest all they want. But not violently interfere to protect illegal criminals (of crimes in addition to coming over here illegally)

[Mr. Bumble]

Does your "free speech" include shooting at ICE facilities as in Texas and killing and wounding migrants?

[Martinned]

No.

Is Portland in Texas? Has Trump sent the National Guard to Texas?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Has Trump sent the National Guard to Texas?"
Unlike in Portland in most instances the police in Texas do their job.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's definitely the [d]ifference.

[Michael P]

That is the first sensible thing you've written today, and might be the only sensible thing you write all day, even though you didn't mean it that way.

[Reallynotbob]

Mr. Bumble, your argument is that the police in Texas "do their job"? Do tell.

The murder rate in Dallas and Houston both exceed Portland. For total violent crime, you can add Lubbock and Corpus Christi (Amarillo is close). For just rapes, add Irving, Fort Worth, Denton, Midland, Austin, Kileen, Pasadena, Arlington, San Antonio (#20), and Waco (#16).

[Nelson]

Holy shit. Texas is burning!

[Joe_dallas]

Texas authorities are not impeding the enforcement of federal law as compared to chicago and portland authorities behavior

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Precisely. And I'm just scanning Judge Immergut's TRO grant holding in Oregon. She makes zero mention of Oregon's or California's Sanctuary State and Cities status, while she follows Breyers assumptions of fact and law in the Newsom case closely, which also omitted that little trifle. Each jurisdiction hosts an open rebellion against U.S. immigration law and explicitly violates 8 U.S.C. sec. 1324 in both harboring and encouraging illegal entrants into the U.S. The Sanctuary governors have also publically characterized the federal police as the criminals, comparing them to Third Reicheins and portray the illegals as innocent victims. This likely impacts their armed combatant followers feeling justified fighting for the "law" depicted by their state leaders. If that isn't an organized rebellion against federal law, what is?

Yet she follows Breyer into telling the POTUS he doesn't know an inability to enforce federal laws, much less a rebellion or danger of rebellion, when he sees one. She did casually mention one of the Texas ICE shootings, but I saw no mention of the Portland armed car rammer.

I wonder why the U.S. hasn't yet invoked the Insurrection Act. Though while it negates the Posse Commitatus objections, they still might see it ls qualifying facts denied by another judge with blinders to the bigger national picture, to prefer playing to local sentiments and approval.

[windycityattorney]

I was told the GOP is a party of state's rights. Not a party of state's rights when only its politically convenient.

Perhaps the new MAGA GOP has abandoned state's rights? I imagine that tune will reverse when again a (D) is in the White House?

Nah. Intellectual integrity is a hallmark of political populists, right??

[JRipplefireEsquire]

The Supremacy Clause bars a state from disobeying or revamping federal law. Harboring or encouraging illegal entrants to the U.S. violates federal law.

I won't speak to the GOPs acquiescence to Trump's many law violations. But Adam Smith conservatism espouses a small national government profile except in those matters government does best, like defense and law enforcement.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hypocrisy runs both ways. Dems haven't been so loudly into states rights since 1861.

[Poxigah146]

If we had reasonable restrictions on voting, I'd be all for state's rights.

As long as a Somali Muslim illegal alien's birthright citizenship child gets the same vote in 18 years as someone whose family came over on the Mayflower, I'm not interested in democracy.

[not guilty]

"Harboring or encouraging illegal entrants to the U.S. violates federal law."

Wrong, by use of the disjunctive connector.

A prohibition of "encouraging illegal entrants to the U.S." would prohibit a substantial amount of advocacy and expression protected by the First Amendment, and would accordingly be unconstitutionally overbroad.

Knowingly or recklessly harboring an illegal alien is unlawful in some circumstances.* The definition of "harbor," however, is narrow. See, United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). “Harboring . . . has a connotation . . . of deliberately safeguarding members of a specified group from the authorities, whether through concealment, movement to a safe location, or physical protection." Id., at 1044.

Protesting at federal facilities -- which in and of itself is First Amendment protected -- does not violate anti-harboring statutes. If such protests become violent, other statutes of general application (irrespective of anyone's immigration status) come into play.

_________________________
* See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), which provides that anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection [or attempts to do any of these things], such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation,” is criminally punishable.

[Reallynotbob]

Sanctuary laws expressly do not "impede the enforcement of federal law." Those cities simply elect not to assist in its enforcement.

[windycityattorney]

What's more is Trump's DOJ filed suit against a few states/cities for their sanctuary laws.

THE DOJ LOST

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Federal law bars harboring or encouraging illegal entrants in 8 U.S.C. sec. 1324. Do not Sanctuary Cities and States harbor them against federal detection? Do they not encourage more to enter illegally by calling themselves sanctuaries for the lawbteakers? Or when they give them free health care, housing or income entitlements like various Sanctuary States do?

[Sarcastr0]

You're seriously arguing a state just calling itself a sanctuary is breaking the law?

You need to look up what specifically a sanctuary state does, and also the cases on anti-commandeering.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

If there is intent to sequester a law violator away from federal law prosecution then I would certainly see that as illegal harboring. I think the rhetoric used by the Sanctuary governors depicting illegal aliens as innocent victims of federal monsters certainly lends to that intent profile. I doubt that any perfunctory denial of law obstruction in Sanctuary satutues would be enough to refute that seemingly obvious intent. But if you'd care to show me any such language, I'm all ears. Ditto for cases to read.

[not guilty]

"If there is intent to sequester a law violator away from federal law prosecution then I would certainly see that as illegal harboring. I think the rhetoric used by the Sanctuary governors depicting illegal aliens as innocent victims of federal monsters certainly lends to that intent profile. I doubt that any perfunctory denial of law obstruction in Sanctuary satutues [sic] would be enough to refute that seemingly obvious intent."

JRipplefireEsquire, applying what you "think" or "doubt" as actual law here lacks two essential characteristics:

(1) nomination by the President, and
(2) confirmation by the Senate.

[David Nieporent]

Do not Sanctuary Cities and States harbor them against federal detection?

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

Do they not encourage more to enter illegally by calling themselves sanctuaries for the lawbteakers?

No. This has been a special bonus episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Nelson]

“Do not Sanctuary Cities and States harbor them against federal detection?”

No.

“ Do they not encourage more to enter illegally by calling themselves sanctuaries for the lawbteakers?”

No.

“ Or when they give them free health care, housing or income entitlements like various Sanctuary States do?”

No.

See, the thing about a law is it sets out a specific thing that is illegal and lists the things that would constitute a violation of that law. The things that you list don’t actually break the law.

I believe the legal term for what you want to call harboring and encouraging is “overbroad”. The colloquial expression is “that dog won’t hunt”.

[AmosArch]

States and local authorities have the right to not assist the Feds. They do not have the right to interfere with lawful activity. Selectively abandoning their sworn fundamental duty to maintain basic law and order in a scummy attempt to aid and encourage attacks on federal property and persons and then trying to prevent said feds from giving themselves the basic protection everyone in the jurisdiction including federal officers is entitled to but was denied to them by the local authorities clearly falls under interference.

[Sarcastr0]

Interference is an active thing.

It is not your vibes about the gap between what state officials should do and did do.

There is no 'standard of care' for law enforcement. Maybe there should be! But not yet.

[AmosArch]

Gaslighto is at it again. When a jail guard selectively turns away from a camera in order to allow an inmate to be killed I am sure most on the left would agree that is aiding a crime not just negligence. Freedom from coordinated physical violence is a fundamental right and expectation for local law enforcement for everybody including federal agents in a jurisdiction. Furthermore they have no moral right to then actively impede the people they've intentionally failed from protecting themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you note that you had to change professions, Amos?

Why do you think that is?

'fundamental right and expectation' is some legalish sounding stuff, for sure.

And you keep saying actively impede but you've so far only complained about intentional inaction, nothing more.

[David Nieporent]

Freedom from coordinated physical violence is a fundamental right and expectation for local law enforcement for everybody including federal agents in a jurisdiction.

That is wrong. There is in fact no right to police protection. Poor Joshua!

Furthermore they have no moral right to then actively impede the people they've intentionally failed from protecting themselves.

I see that we're in the fanfic portion of tonight's program.

Prison is an entirely different context; that falls under the govt-created danger doctrine. Unlike ICE agents, prisoners are confined there by the state and prevented from defending themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is in fact no right to police protection. "

Are we forgetting the EPC? What did you think it was a right to?

You don't have a right that the police protect people from violence.

However, IF the police decide to protect people from violence, they can't say, "Except YOU. We're not going to protect YOU."

[not guilty]

You don't have a right that the police protect people from violence.

However, IF the police decide to protect people from violence, they can't say, "Except YOU. We're not going to protect YOU."

Brett, what do you posit here as class-based invidious discrimination by the State? What class is favored, and what class is disadvantaged?

And David is correct that, absent a custodial or otherwise special relationship, the state does not have an affirmative obligation to protect an individual from infliction of violence by private actors. As Chief Justice Rehnquist opined in DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989):

[N]othing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

It seems to me that when a state law enforcement officer is ordered to conceal the release of an illegal alien from custody to ICE under a sanctuary law, and that causes the officer to commit what seems a betrayal of his or her federal citizenship duty, professional law enforcement cooperation duty or his civil rights to enjoy maximal enforcement of federal immigration enforcement, that a deprivation of rights, ethics and/or federal law results.

This kind of deprivation also seems evident by the recent Chicago police officers organization's denouncement of their reported orders to stand down from assisting ICE officers placing emergency assistance calls.

[Sarcastr0]

"It seems to me"
"what seems a betrayal"
"seems evident"

You seem to have an inkling that you're in 'ought' land, but you end up arguing as though you are in 'is' land.

You're free to have your own opinion about what the law ought to be. You are not free to make up your own facts about what the law is based on what you think ought to be.

[David Nieporent]

ordered to conceal the release of an illegal alien from custody

Again, making stuff up. They're not "concealing" anything; they're not putting a wig and fake mustache on a prisoner and sneaking him out the side door of prison in the middle of the night. They're just not affirmatively announcing the prisoner's release to ICE.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

How do sanctuary laws which require sheriffs to conceal from ICE the release from jail of an illegal alien inmate differ substantially from Judge Hannah Dugans current 8 U.S.C sec. 1324 prosecution for concealing the escape of an illegal alien from ICE from her courthouse? Both essentially had custody of their subject and omitted mention to ICE while knowingly sending them out an exit to escape immediate apprehension.

[Sarcastr0]

That seems center mass no info sharing with the feds.

Not notifying is not the same as concealing.

You keep confusing no acting with affirmatively acting. It's kind of wild, since this is something most of us learn by about 4 years old.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

So you predict the judges acquittal?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't, because she took affirmative acts to conceal. This is the exact distinction I just mocked you for being unable to understand!

Though honestly I don't know the law about judicial acts and what not so I wouldn't bet on either side.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't, because she took affirmative acts to conceal. This is the exact distinction I just mocked you for being unable to understand!"

That raises an interesting question: Could the state legislature enacting a law prohibiting, or the executive issuing an EO prohibiting, state employees from sharing information, qualify as such an affirmative act?

They're not simply failing to direct their employees to assist. They're directly ordering their employees to refrain from assisting. Even on their own time!

Of course, California went as far as to mandate that private employers warn employees if ICE is making inquiries, and there isn't really any sensible legal theory under which THAT didn't cross the line into interference.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course not, Brett.

You can't get around anti-commandeering by claiming passing an anti-commandeering law is an affirmative act.

Good lord, you sound like Dr. Ed.

I'm not at sure that aspect of AB 450 is constitutional due to preemption.
But you seem to be arguing that the lawmakers were breaking federal law by passing it. Think for a moment about the implications of that.

We don't have an elected king, who gets to jail lower parliaments for not properly hopping to.

The give and take of federalism is complex, and the right's swing towards One Unitary Executive to Rule Them All is simplistic, inconsistent with their past, and just bad policy.

[Frank Drackman]

Not just the Guard but Active Duty Marine Corpse and Army, maybe you should get a Compuserve Account on AlGores Internets

[jb]

Yo, they're just tourists checking the place out. They haven't even gone inside...

[hobie]

What ANTIFA?

So everyone was a pedo. Then everyone was an antisemitic terrorist. Now ANTIFA?

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps someone can explain ANTIFA because I don't know what the hell people are talking about. Is there an actual headquarter, a leader, or is most of ANTIFA just taking up residence in the minds of people.

[hobie]

As far as I am able to discern, ANTIFA is just an ideology.

[Bwaaah]

They're easy to recognize. They usually wear black clothes including masks, gas masks, bullet proof vests, helmets and the like. They work in groups by harassing otherwise unrelated people around them and by destroying/defacing property. They assault the people whom they consider their targets, refuse to identify themselves, and often carry umbrellas to obscure their crimes from being recorded.

I'm sure you've seen them. They're hard to miss.

[hobie]

Apart from the umbrellas, it sounds a lot like a certain paramilitary group of recent renown

[Frank Drackman]

The Black Panthers? to paraphrase my favorite Kenyan Ex-POTUS,
"uhhhhh Hobie-Stank, uhhhhhhh 1971 called, uhhhhhh they want their uhhhhh Black uhhhhh Panther reference back"

Frank

[Reallynotbob]

No no, that's ICE.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, ICE dresses that way too (sort of). But don't worry. It's easy (in real life) to distinguish which is ANTIFA and which is ICE. (Nobody was complaining they can't figure out which people are ICE; they just don't like the way ICE dresses lately.)

The faux argument being advanced here is that people can't tell who is ANTIFA.

[bernard11]

they just don't like the way ICE dresses lately.

It's not that the outfits aren't stylish. It's the masks and lack of badges or other observable ID.

What should we call a law enforcement organization that disguises its members tries to keep their identities secret?

Secret police, maybe?

[Bwaaah]

Are you having problems identifying ICE? They seem to make themselves pretty known pretty quickly these days.

But yeah. Shhhh. Secret.

[bernard11]

Seriously, Bwaaah, what do you think about them wearing masks?

And the issue is not whether I can tell that someone is in ICE. It's whether the individuals themselves can be identified.

Why do police wear badges?

[Life of Brian]

And the issue is not whether I can tell that someone is in ICE. It's whether the individuals themselves can be identified.

I'll read whatever you have on this, but as far as I can tell this is a made-up requirement.

Why do police wear badges?

Plainclothes and undercover cops don't.

[Bwaaah]

What do I think of ICE wearing masks?

Portland's murder rate is way above its pre-pandemic level. In New York City, where I live, it's still way above where it was. Thousands more people are being murdered each year across the country (compared to 5 years ago). That dramatic rise in crime, only abating starting last year, coincided with Democrat-sponsored "criminal justice reform" which also meant a whole lot of "let 'em out and leave 'em be."

And you're concerned about how ICE looks? You feel threatened by *them*?

YOU are the Democratic take on crime. Take a bow.

[bernard11]

Portland's murder rate is way above its pre-pandemic level. In New York City, where I live, it's still way above where it was. Thousands more people are being murdered each year across the country (compared to 5 years ago). That dramatic rise in crime, only abating starting last year, coincided with Democrat-sponsored "criminal justice reform" which also meant a whole lot of "let 'em out and leave 'em be."

But ICE is not a police force. The rise in crime is disturbing, but ICE is not of much use in fighting it. Do they even have the authority to arrest people?

If the criminal justice reforms you criticize are responsible, then shouldn't the focus be on changing or rescinding them, rather than sending in an occupation force?

[Bwaaah]

I'm not particularly interested in "criminal justice reforms," such as how ICE looks. I'm interested in there being less crime, or more pointedly, fewer victims of crime.

We have different priorities, Bernard. You could seek a law that requires ICE agents to have ID numbers printed on their masks, and that might solve your alleged problem. Maybe it could be a signature piece of a Democratic "Crime Reduction Act." You could add a provision that changes their uniforms from black to white so as to reflect sunlight and reduce the effects of climate change. (Every little bit helps, eh?) It could rival the Democratic "Inflation Reduction Act."

One day, years in the future, I hope you'll look back and realize this was a time when you put aside everything that mattered so you could attend to what matters to you most: shining light on turds as they drop out of DJT's ass.

[Nelson]

“ Portland's murder rate is way above its pre-pandemic level.”

Way to massage the data to pretend Portland is bad and getting worse, Mislead McLiarface. In fact, the opposite is true.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/08/portland-homicides-drop-51-in-2025-steepest-decline-among-major-us-cities-report-finds.html

“ In New York City, where I live, it's still way above where it was.”

Same dishonest phasing here, to distract from the drop in crime in the past 5 years in New York as well (and I had to use this site, not only for its concise presentation of data, but also for its name).

https://www.slaycation. wtf/new-york-citys-murder-rate/

“ Thousands more people are being murdered each year across the country (compared to 5 years ago).”

Sure, if you use the spike during the pandemic (experienced all over the country). But if you ignore the one-time outlier (which is what honest people do), the trend across the country and across large cities is downward. Significantly.

In fact, the highest murder rates in the country are in red states.

https://worldpopulationreview. com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state

So don’t piss on us and tell us it’s raining. Red states, as always, have higher murder rates than blue states on average. And that happens in states with low population densities, so it’s not even like there are more people in proximity to be able to kill each other.

[Bwaaah]

You're right. Crime went down (very substantially) over the past year. And I shouldn't talk about the longer term trends, the fact that no country in the world experienced a spike in crime due to the pandemic, or that the "STFU" from Democrats is the same this year as in all the years before.

CRIME IS EXCELLENT NOW!!!

[Life of Brian]

In fact, the highest murder rates in the country are in [blue strongholds in - Ed.] red states.

That old saw just never gets old, does it?

[Bwaaah]

And just out of interest...what major initiatives, if any, are Democrats pushing in order to reduce crime to where it was in the mid 2010s? Do you consider that to be an improper goal?

[Mr. Bumble]

"And just out of interest…what major initiatives, if any, are Democrats pushing in order to reduce crime to where it was in the mid 2010s? Do you consider that to be an improper goal?"
Not reporting or prosecuting it?

[bernard11]

Guess what, Bwaaah.

I too am "interested in there being less crime, or more pointedly, fewer victims of crime."

I'm also interested in law enforcement conducting itself in accordance with the Constitution and not having a blank check to anything at all, including roaming the streets anonymously and randomly grabbing people.

I'm also interested in real, professional, law enforcement, which is not what ICE does. So by all means, improve the police, arrest criminals of whatever political persuasion, etc. But stop the performative, terroristic BS that's going on.

As for shining a light on Trump's turds, well, since too many people don't see them, maybe a little light would help.

[Bwaaah]

Bumble: Yep. They like to call it “diversion.”

[Bwaaah]

Bernard: same question for you as Nelson...

What major initiatives, if any, are Democrats pushing in order to reduce crime to where it was in the mid 2010s? Do you consider that to be an improper goal?

[Nelson]

“ The faux argument being advanced here is that people can't tell who is ANTIFA.”

No, the argument is that Antifa isn’t a group, just like militias aren’t a group. There are groups that see themselves as sharing a common cause with other anti-fascist groups, exactly like right-wing militias see themselves as sharing a common cause with other right-wing militias.

The disingenuous (using the most charitable term) claims that Antifa is a group is just another exercise in gaslighting by the MAGA faithful.

[David Nieporent]

I don't exactly agree with your analogy. While there is no such single entity as "militias," militia members do form groups, with leaders and everything. Antifa has none of that. The issue isn't merely that antifa is a bunch of independent cells, but that antifa is a bunch of independent people. There's no hierarchy, no membership, no leaders — locally or nationally. It's just a bunch of similarly minded people in a locale who choose to act sometimes.

[Bwaaah]

Antifa might be better described as a loosely related range of beliefs rather than an actual group. The term "anarchist" comes to mind.

Like most criminals, each should be prosecuted on the basis of his/her alleged crime(s), not an ascribed label. Conspiratorial activity tends to be momentary and opportunistic.

Unfortunately, this type of criminal tends to lean toward property crimes (e.g. vandalism) and "minor" assaults. Many jurisdictions have taken the bite out of laws and enforcement that would address that kind of criminality. These unlawful actors effectively continue to break the law openly, with de facto impunity, as legislators and city governments intentionally stripped judges and police of many of their enforcement tools/discretion.

These mainly Democrat-sponsored "criminal justice reforms" have resulted in a type of advancing enshitification of cities that Democrats pretend isn't going on. I can only speak first hand of NYC where criminality in the past decade has been increasingly visible on the streets. On the positive side, Democrats are quietly unwinding some of their most destructive policies (e.g. like no permissible cash bail for many crimes) while admitting no wrongdoing or untoward effects of their so-called reforms.

The situation is improving here in NYC and in many other jurisdictions. Neither the enshitification nor the improvements are difficult to explain, except for Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

ISWYDT.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie probably thinks that the Mafia is just an Italian cultural organization.

[not guilty]

"As far as I am able to discern, ANTIFA is just an ideology."

Yes, but they've got a banging theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUl-PqIOuGc&list=RDsUl-PqIOuGc&start_radio=1

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't conceive of anything between a strictly regimented organization, and non-existence? Like maybe the cell system that revolutionaries have been using since, oh, about the French revolution?

[Nelson]

So like militias? The Proud Boys and the Three Percenters and the Oathkeepers and the Boogaloo Boys? Like that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, my experience with militia groups was confined to the early 90's, and those groups didn't make any effort at all to hide their identities or obscure chains of command, because they didn't understand themselves to be doing anything the least bit illegal.

Maybe the newer groups are different in that regard, but I wouldn't know.

[John 4]

Ludicrous

[Mr. Bumble]

What does a rapper have to do with this?

[Frank Drackman]

You're thinking of "Ludacris" one of My Hometown's contributions to Music, along with ARS (if you have to ask...), Collective Soul, Confederate Railroad, Indigo Girls, Outkast, Starbuck (yeah, I know, but who wasn't humming along to "Moonlight Feels Right" in 1976?)Tag Team (of "Whoomp Dere it is!" fame) and right up the 316 In Athens you have 2 local groups that might become famous some day, the B-52's and R.E.M. (what was that Frequency Kenneth?)
Ironically Vicki Lawrence, (Who was born Vicki Axelrod, more in a moment) who had Billboard #1 hit in 1973 with "The Night the Lights went out in Georgia" (I just realized Vicki is the one who shot Andy) ISN'T from Atlanta, but California (Inglewood) and is 1/2 Jewish, but somehow got left out of Adam Sandler's "Chanukah Song" (Couldn't find a rhyme with "Lawrence"??? Warrants, Torrents....OK, maybe he knew what he was doing.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I know. You aren't the only one who can play Norm Crosby or Emily Litella.

[Brett Bellmore]

Care to elaborate?

[Sarcastr0]

What proof do you have? Without evidence this is just fan fiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, what proof do I have for early 90's militia groups not bothering with operational security, and being public about who their leadership were? Obviously the internet is kind of thin for events back then.

What can I say beyond that I was there, and lived through it? We actually had traffic problems near my house when they closed the highway past the Nichols farm to search it, I was that much in the heart of where it was going on.

The Michigan militia were working with local governments to provide search and rescue services, and assist in response to natural disasters. That's not the sort of thing a secretive organization does.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I mean what proof do you have that Antifa is acting as a militia, but more secure so we can't see them doing it?

Seems you don't have evidence other than blaming every example of political violence, left wing or no, on Antifa.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, that.

I don't think they're operating as a "militia". I think they're operating as what they claim to be: A violent revolutionary movement.

The rest of what you're asking for is the usual, "Conduct an entire criminal trial in a blog comment, or I'll dismiss it as groundless" technique. You're asking for the end point of the investigation and potentially trials, when we're at the starting point: Admitting there's a problem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A violent revolutionary movement."

The libs here sure put a lot of energy into denying this. Doth protesting too much I'd say.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, are you arguing the denial that Dems are part of a vast terroristic conspiracy is just more proof of the conspiracy?

I know you're just having laffs on the Internet, but I would note that such an assertion, if true, would require that the opposition party and judges and prosecutors and non-MAGA institutions should all be forcibly imprisoned.

Pretty fashy!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Part of"? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

"Don't mind it being around"? "Motivated to make excuses for"? Yeah, I'd go for that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob, are you arguing the denial that Dems are part of a vast terroristic conspiracy is just more proof of the conspiracy?"

I said "libs here", you said "Dems". You are the leader here as a matter of fact.

You just ignore decades of riots at international meetings and US events by masked black clad leftists. Portland courthouse was a riot scene back in 2020 for months.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob I have no idea what you're talking about with 'decades of rioting at international meetings.' When has that even come up such that I could ignore it?

Portland courthouse was a riot scene back in 2020 for months.
It sure was! Sometimes. And I said throw the book at anyone who commits crimes.

But protests are not riots.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Cajin Navy is a militia group -- and they've done a lot of SARs.

They are more capable than the USCG in terms of shallow water and submerged debris.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anyway, joining any of those organizations is just an overly complex way of reporting yourself to the government, which largely took them over almost immediately, and continued them in operation as honeypots.

Something any sane person with a speck of intelligence would have anticipated, and stayed far away from them.

I mean, didn't we learn that from the Proud Boys prosecution? Half their leadership were government informants! I expect the same is true of the rest of them.

[Michael P]

No, pretty much not at all. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have, or had (before they were crushed by the Autopen administration), well-defined structures and leaders. None of them has the history of serial criminality that Antifa has.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, operational security and obscure chains of command are something you resort to when you understand yourself to be doing something illegal. These groups generally do not see themselves that way.

[Sarcastr0]

What history of Antifa serial(?) criminality are you referring to?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, this may not have ever occurred to you, but "punching a Nazi" is assault and battery.

Trying to set fire to an occupied court building is attempted murder.

"Direct action" is a euphemism for criminality.

[Sarcastr0]

In your eagerness to pretend I condone crimes, you've failed utterly to identify serial criminality.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that you "condone" crimes, as that God forbid anybody seriously investigate to see if they're not random. It's the party line that "Antifa is just an idea", and nobody is allowed to check if that's really true.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the party line that you need proof when you assert things, especially vast conspiracies that include the opposing political party.

Especially if you plan to spend resources.
And doubly so when you're deploying jackbooted thugs.

MAGA doesn't have that party line.

[bernard11]

No. It's the different party line that Antifa is a massive, well organized movement that is conducting a campaign of terror.

Look, you don't need to conduct big investigations. Just find and arrest the arsonists and muggers and violent actors.

It's police work, but MAGA would rather have the bogeyman around to yell about.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's the different party line that Antifa is a massive, well organized movement that is conducting a campaign of terror."

I am open to the possibility that "Antifa" is just some kind of contagious moral disease without any central organization. A ghastly thought, because a centrally controlled evil could be spiked easier. What I object to is the demand that this be treated as an indisputable theological truth, rather than just a hypothesis subject to testing and potentially refutation.

[Sarcastr0]

No evidence for that either!

You're just committed to the other side being evil.

[Nelson]

“ rather than just a hypothesis subject to testing and potentially refutation.”

The problem the hard right has always had, of course, is every time your hypothesis has been tested, it fails.

Now, however, Trump and the MAGA movement have given permission (hell, encouraged) the idea that if you say something it’s true.

And if evidence shows it isn’t true, double down and say it’s a secret conspiracy.

And if it’s pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to support a vast conspiracy, say that the evidence just hasn’t been found yet, but “everyone knows” it’s true.

To be fair, Brett Bellmore was doing this long before MAGA was even a gleam in Donald Trump’s eye.

[Dr. Ed 2]

GaslightO, ANTAFA was BAMN back in the '90s and probably something else before that. They are well funded and that's another issue.

[Nelson]

“ None of them has the history of serial criminality that Antifa has.”

Really? The Proud Boys? The Oathkeepers? The Three Percenters? The Boogaloo Boys? Those are the ones you’re claiming don’t have a “history of serial criminality”?

To be fair, it’s more like a defining feature than a history.

[David Nieporent]

I can conceive of it, but it doesn't apply to antifa. Think of amateur sports. If you live in a moderately sized town, there may be some adult soccer league where there are dues to be put on a roster, schedules, people have uniforms and reserve fields, hire refs, etc. (There certainly are such leagues for kids, of course.)

And then there may also be the situation in which there's an understanding that every Saturday morning there's a pickup game in the local park, where anyone who shows up can play, no prearrangement of any sort expected or required. No formal teams, nobody is "in charge." No refs. Show up or not, as you want. Maybe you talk to a few of your soccer-playing friends and say, "Hey, I'm playing tomorrow morning; want to come with? We can go out for beer afterwards," but there's nothing more organized than that. No membership, no coaches. All informal and unorganized. If you show up at the right place at the right time, you'll see a group of people all acting together, but it's not anything formal.

The latter is antifa.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the leftists fail to understand is that ICE is fully capable of both obtaining and carrying enough ordinance to get themselves out of any situation without the assistance of local police -- and when in extremis, can and will use it to save their own lives.

For example, a few Claymore mines strapped to the sides of ICE vehicles would effectively defend ICE guys trapped inside said vehicles, albeit at an atrocious cost. This is what Portland and Chicago are asking for in letting ICE twist in the wind.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, right, I'd forgotten why I'd muted you before. Getting old is hell.

Back on the list.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh come on, muting Dr. Ed is like watching the 3 Stooges with Curly's lines edited out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only one who remembers Waco?

[Dr. Ed 2]

For those who don't, the FBI went in with tanks, and the cause of the fire that incinerated the place is open to debate.

Tanks and burning an occupied residence flat, Claymores -- I consider the consequences equally awful.

[Nelson]

Damn, even Brett thinks your conspiracy theories are insane. That’s gotta leave a mark.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not so much that as the suggestion of equipping cars with directional mines.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you just...declaim thinking Ed's conspiracies were insane?

[Brett Bellmore]

Conspiracy theories can be insane, but they're not enough to get me to mute you. Suggesting that ICE hang Claymores on the sides of their vehicles, OTOH? That's a good reason to mute somebody.

[Nelson]

That and the fact that Dr. Ed lies more than anyone else here (and with Jesse, Mother’s Lament, and the paleocons here, that’s an impressive feat). Plus the constant civil war desires he expresses, of course.

He’s as drawn to unfounded conspiracy theories as you are, but he doesn’t have the redeeming value of quality and detailed posts on engineering processes and possibilities that you do.

So probably worth muting, but I like to know what the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe is thinking. It helps predict Trump’s next move.

[ReaderY]

Can you explain why none of the people who claim this is happening were willing to testify to it in court?

Can you explain why Homeland Security’s own FPS logs were introduced by Oregon and Portland to corroborate that this isn’t happening?

You tell a lot of big stories. If the people who tell these stories actually believe them, why are they chickening out of telling them in court? Why is not a singe witness willing to come forward and testify to it?

[bernard11]

Because they are alternative facts.

[Nelson]

Stop using logic and evidence, ReaderY. It gives MAGAworld the heebie-jeebies.

[Mr. Bumble]

New term for the SC starts today. Will the calender be filled with emergency appeals?
And in other SC news:
"A New Jersey man was arrested after allegedly toting a Molotov cocktail outside a Washington, DC Catholic church that was hosting a special mass to celebrate the start of the Supreme Court term, according to authorities.

Louis Geri, of Vineland, New Jersey, was cuffed on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle shortly before 6 a.m. Sunday after setting up a tent full of “suspicious” items and refusing to leave, according to the Metropolitan Police Department."
https://nypost.com/2025/10/05/us-news/new-jersey-man-arrested-for-having-molotov-cocktail-outside-dc-church/
This comes after a judge gave wanna be Kavanaugh assassin only an eight year sentence (the recommendation was 30 years)
in part because he identifies as a woman.

[Martinned]

The US does free speech so much better than other countries!

To ICE, Border Patrol, Law Enforcement, and all U.S. Military: As per my August 25, 2025 Executive Order, please be advised that, from this point forward, anybody burning the American Flag will be subject to one year in prison. You will be immediately arrested. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

[Brett Bellmore]

Donald Trump Issues Ultimatum to American Flag Burners

"The president’s executive order does not establish new criminal penalties for flag burning; rather, it directs the Justice Department to more aggressively prosecute cases under existing laws and to refer possible violations to state and local authorities when applicable.

According to the official White House fact sheet, the order also seeks to clarify the limits of the First Amendment surrounding acts that incite violence or threaten public safety. The order also calls on the secretaries of state and homeland security to take immigration-related actions, such as denying visas or pursuing removal, for foreign nationals who engage in flag desecration."

[Martinned]

You forget, Führerbefehl hat Gesetzeskraft.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gesundheit!

[SRG2]

Which is just how the cultists like it

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't SCOTUS say it would have been permissible to prosecute the flagburner for theft - it was a USPS flag he stole.

[Reallynotbob]

You can prosecute someone for trespassing while waving one, too. What's your point?

[bernard11]

The pretzel libertarian speaks.

Here is Trump:

"When you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we've never seen before," Trump said.

Really?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's pretty stupid.

[Nelson]

Not the first time. Won’t be the last. Trump specializes in saying stupid things. And untrue things. He’s got skills.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump wasn't my first choice in the primaries. He wasn't even my second choice in the primaries. Not in 2016, or in 2024. I didn't even bother voting in the 2024 primaries, because everybody I'd have happily voted for had already dropped out by the time my state voted.

But I considered him the lesser evil of the candidates who had a chance of winning the general election. I seriously wish he'd been a lot lesser in that regard, but lesser he was.

I said this before: I'd rather he zipped it, but at least he's IN the tent, pissing OUT. Can't even say that much about the alternatives the Democrats keep puking up lately.

[Nelson]

Sure, a serial liar who has disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution, who doesn’t have any principles or integrity, who is completely transactional and easily swayed by the last person he talked to, who is a bully and is willing to use the power of the government to threaten anyone who opposes him, who uses his position to openly enrich himself and his family through his ability to interfere in normal business processes like merger approvals, who uses the machinery of government to punish free speech and criticism, who openly and proudly governs for the small percentage (only 1/3 of adults voted for him and even fewer support his policies) of people who support him and against the rest of the country, and who punishes entire states because of their political choices.

Yes, the Democrats have run some God-awful candidates lately (Hillary and Kamala, for example), but Donald Trump is the antithesis of what an American President is supposed to be.

If MAGA continues as the governing principles of the GOP after he leaves office, America is in a lot of trouble.

[Martinned]

some God-awful candidates lately (Hillary and Kamala, for example)

Even that is really weird. They were only God-awful in the tautological sense that they didn't win even though they were running against Trump. But Hillary was the most qualified Presidential candidate of either party since Al Gore, or maybe even George H.W. Bush.

[Mr. Bumble]

Obama won't appreciate you saying so.

[Brett Bellmore]

The amount of denial necessary to say that is just staggering.

I will candidly admit that if Hillary wasn't a sociopath who makes Trump look like one hell of a nice guy, she'd be pretty qualified. She's very good at running things, and I guess the federal government is a "thing". If all you needed to be a good President was organizational skills, she'd be a top notch President. I mean, I still wouldn't vote for her, but she'd be competently doing all sorts of things I don't think should be done.

But that's policy, and we disagree on policy.

The problem is, she IS that sociopath. She's got a life-long history of corruption. OK, she's competently corrupt, in the sense that she has always put in the work to make sure she wouldn't end up behind bars, but that's hardly the same thing as being honest. Just take the cattle futures trading. Nobody who has seriously looked at that thinks it was on the up and up.

And that bit about a basket of deplorables? It really sums up the other problem with her, which is that he had a vast and abiding contempt for anybody who opposed her. Sure would not have been a uniter if she'd won that election!

And Harris? She's such a hotshot she had to drop out in her home state before the primary! Let's face it, the only reason she got the nomination is that she got the VP nomination as an affirmative action pick, and by the time Democrats could no longer deny that Biden was damaged goods, there was no time left in which to replace her.

Biden, aside from his age, was a plausible President. I'd purely hated him on a policy level, but I'd say that until Hunter got busy, he wasn't even a particularly corrupt politician. HE was normal Presidential material, in a way Clinton and Harris were not.

[bernard11]

Just take the cattle futures trading. Nobody who has seriously looked at that thinks it was on the up and up.

Depends on what you mean exactly. It almost certainly wasn't completely kosher, since achieving her results was wildly, almost astronomically, improbable.

To me, the most likely explanation is that the broker was allocating profitable trades to her account, in an effort to gain favor with Bill, who was governor at the time. (As I understand it, trades were made throughout the day, and allocated to accounts at the close of business. Doesn't seem like a sensible procedure, but I don't know much about that business.)

Was she aware of what was going on? Well, I think she had to be a little bit suspicious, at least. Was this active corruption? Hard to say. At a minimum she probably should have taken a more active interest in what was going on.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is, she IS that sociopath. She’s got a life-long history of corruption. OK, she’s competently corrupt, in the sense that she has always put in the work to make sure she wouldn’t end up behind bars, but that’s hardly the same thing as being honest. Just take the cattle futures trading. Nobody who has seriously looked at that thinks it was on the up and up.

Except of course all the investigations that did look into it, and found nothing illegal.

And it's really astonishing that you would pretend that garden variety private financial corruption — even if that were proven, which of course it was not — somehow makes one a "sociopath." In contrast to Trump's policy of deliberately harming people for fun.

And that bit about a basket of deplorables? It really sums up the other problem with her, which is that he had a vast and abiding contempt for anybody who opposed her.

Of course, she didn't say "anybody who opposed her." In fact, she didn't say anything at all about "opposing" her; she was talking about people who supported Trump. And even then, she massively misunderestimated the "deplorables" category as only half of Trump's supporters; she accepted that the other half of his supporters had legitimate reasons for doing so.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Except of course all the investigations that did look into it, and found nothing illegal."

I SAID she's competently corrupt, in the sense that she has always put in the work to make sure she wouldn't end up behind bars.

The investigators looked into it, found that the odds of it being a legitimate series of trades were astronomically low, but, because they were all day trades closed out by the end of day, they didn't leave the sort of records you'd need to prove anything!

That's sort of the Clinton signature: She didn't mind one bit people knowing she was a crook, so long as you couldn't prove it in a courtroom. I think she actually got off on the impotent fury of her enemies knowing, but not being able to do anything about it.

Like the Rose law firm billing records being under subpoena, and they just magically turn up in the book room just after the statute of limitations expired.

Most people, having refused to comply with the subpoena, would have just burned the records, she wanted the world to KNOW she'd had them the whole time.

[bernard11]

So is using five-year-old video clips on Fox to justify invading Portland.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, anyway, the US is, sadly, capable of doing free speech much better than other countries, AND doing it somewhat badly on an absolute scale. Because other countries are typically just that bad.

[Martinned]

If that is your version of better, you can keep it. In other democracies where people are arrested for their speech, at least they don't end up in prison for a year.

[Armchair]

Except when they do.

31 months in prison. For speech. In Europe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o

[shawn_dude]

Exactly. Which is why having the government threaten to pull licensing and other elements necessary to do business if companies don't fire employees for speech the government doesn't like makes the US more free speechier! Sure, the US's version of "free speech" includes blackballing people with threat of government force but at least we don't imprison them; that's just going too far. Oh, except for the pro-Palestinian protestors that lost their visas and were imprisoned for their speech. We did do that.

[Martinned]

You missed the part where she's already been released? After less than a year?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, wow. Less than a year. That makes it all better, it really does.

[Martinned]

It doesn't, but "a year" is the number Trump mentioned, and what I mentioned in my previous comment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, thanks for admitting that people DO get arrested for their speech in other countries, and sometime speech that wouldn't even get you a hostile glance here in the US.

Hell, in the UK you can get arrested because a cop suspects that you're mentally praying. Well, Orwell WAS talking about England in 1984, after all, so ThoughtCrime is right on brand.

But allow me to point out to you that the above year in prison doesn't apply to speech, but instead to burning a flag. And once you get into the details, as opposed to the hyperbolic announcement, you find it's only for burning a flag under conditions where doing so is criminal and not 1st amendment protected.

Do I LIKE the fact that our current President makes such hyperbolic announcements? No, I don't. And the fact that the underlying policy is generally more reasonable does not make me like it any more.

OTOH, I've had nearly 67 years now to get used to not liking the way Presidents act, or to get burned out on it anyway, so don't expect me to freak out every time Trump says something stupid. The last President I actually LIKED was Reagan, and that was only until I learned about Iran Contra.

Honestly, I am nearly 67, I'm tired, I'm gradually disengaging from politics, and all I ask from the government is that it mostly leave me alone. And maybe they can hold off the civil war until I'm safely dead?

Trump is willing to mostly leave ordinary people like me alone. I think that's the source of a lot of his popularity: Normal people view him as in the tent and pissing out, even if they'd really prefer he zipped it.

[Martinned]

Seriously, you're bringing up the praying guy again?

Why not talk about Palestine Action? Because that really is an outrage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/05/police-to-get-new-powers-to-crack-down-on-repeated-protests-says-home-office

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't I bring up the praying people (There wasn't just one.) again? It's outrageous, and they actually DO it.

"Why not talk about Palestine Action? Because that really is an outrage."

So, you don't get outraged at people being arrested for peaceably praying, you're tired of it being brought up? But you do think it's a real outrage if the government goes after a terrorist group that commits crimes in support of Middle Eastern genocidal maniacs?

[Martinned]

you don't get outraged at people being arrested for peaceably praying

You know full well (or ought to, by now) that that's not why they were arrested.

the government goes after a terrorist group that commits crimes in support of Middle Eastern genocidal maniacs?

As you can tell from the article I linked to, that's not what I was talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I know full well that IS why they were arrested.

"As you can tell from the article I linked to, that's not what I was talking about."

You're talking about "Palestine Action". A self-described "direct action" organization, where "direct action" is a euphemism for criminal acts and terrorism. And they do it in support of Hamas, which is to say, Middle Eastern genocidal maniacs.

You're talking about an organization that celebrates Hamas' attack on October 7th. And you're more upset about them than you are over people being arrested for silently praying.

[Nelson]

“ where "direct action" is a euphemism for criminal acts and terrorism.”

Don’t be absurd. Direct action is a common phrase used by political activists across the political spectrum, from Turning Point USA to Greenpeace.

“ And they do it in support of Hamas, which is to say, Middle Eastern genocidal maniacs.”

Supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel’s occupation isn’t supporting Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Direct action" is indeed a common phrase used by political activists to deliberately conflate legal actions and crimes. So maybe "euphemism" isn't quite the right term. "Equivocation"?

But they didn't get declared a terrorist organization in the UK by peacefully protesting. They got declared a terrorist organization in the UK because they were routinely committing crimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel’s occupation isn’t supporting Hamas."

Palestine Action celebrated Hamas' attack on October 7th. They ARE, simply, supporting Hamas.

[Nelson]

“ activists to deliberately conflate legal actions and crimes”

Don’t be ridiculous. Direct action means exactly what is says: directly acting to change or advance political policies that the group supports. It has nothing to do with crime, it is a type of group that differs from indirect action groups like The Gates Foundation, which funds direct action groups like medical research organizations.

“ They got declared a terrorist organization in the UK because they were routinely committing crimes.”

This is the same UK that is sending people to prison for disfavored speech? Forgive me if I find their definition of “crime” to be suspect.

[Nelson]

“ Palestine Action celebrated Hamas' attack on October 7th. They ARE, simply, supporting Hamas.”

That isn’t support. It’s speech. Loathsome and disgusting speech, but speech nonetheless.

You are an unabashed Lost Cause pro-Confederate apologist. They were much more awful than Hamas has ever been. And Hamas is a fanatical religious death cult with no redeeming moral, governance, or policy features whatsoever. And no one is (nor should they) call what you do support. I have to believe that if a governing party came forward today with the same principles and goals as the Confederacy, you would reject them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Direct action means exactly what is says: directly acting to change or advance political policies that the group supports."

Sometimes the direct action is something legal, sometimes it's the proverbial "by any means necessary". The term deliberately does not distinguish.

Palestine Action was more on the "by any means necessary" end of the spectrum.

[Sarcastr0]

So use of the term direct action is not evidence of anything. Not even really useful to bring up, really.

[Martinned]

No, I'm talking about the people who are being arrested for demonstrating against Palestine Action being designated as a terrorist organisation, which should be very much protected speech. (And, in my opinion, is protected speech under the Human Rights Act. But it may take a few years of litigation to sort that out.)

[Brett Bellmore]

That's somewhat better, but you're still pretty casual about violating the free speech of people peacefully opposed to abortion, while being visibly outraged over violating the free speech of people peacefully protesting... legal action against a criminal conspiracy in support of terrorists.

[Martinned]

"Peacefully" is doing a lot of work there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, I'm not going to defend somebody who tackles women walking into an abortion clinic. I am going to defend somebody who gets convicted of silently standing near an abortion clinic.

Here's what looks like a fairly balanced account.

Now, they say that, "The conviction was not related to Mr Smith-Connor’s thoughts while he was in the safe zone."

But if he'd just been standing there enjoying the sun? No, he wouldn't have been in violation of the order. And,

" The Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists welcomed this measure, but has also specified a hope that legal guidelines will “not … permit silent prayer as an exemption” in these zones."

Seems they got their way about that.

[bernard11]

Trump is willing to mostly leave ordinary people like me alone.

You may want to consider the definition of "normal" in that sentence, and whether "abnormal" people should also be left alone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depending on the nature of their abnormality, sure. Pacifists are wildly abnormal. So are serial killers. That doesn't mean you should leave them BOTH alone.

[bernard11]

It also means leaving "normal," as determined by Trump, people alone is not much of a virtue.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Normal" is not defined by Trump. It's more of a statistical thing.

Democracy isn't a way of assuring there's no oppression, it's a way of deciding who carries the oppression out. The big point in favor of it IS statistical: Voting means that it's generally the minority that's suffering, not the majority. Fewer people being oppressed.

I mean this seriously: Trump is less of a threat to MOST people than Democrats are. He's no libertarian but he's not on a crusade to upend society whether or not it wants to be upended. You want to have a gas stove, say? He's not going to ban it.

If that doesn't sound like a resounding endorsement, that's because it's not meant to be one. I really do not much like Trump, I just dislike Democrats a bit more.

[Sarcastr0]

he’s not on a crusade to upend society whether or not it wants to be upended.

Yeah, he is. He says it. His people say it. He's put out EO's saying it.
He's doing it too - across US government, state government, academia, law firms, Hollywood, the worldwide economy...

You are not most people. Both in your place in society and in your philosophy.

[David Nieporent]

Do I LIKE the fact that our current President makes such hyperbolic announcements? No, I don’t. And the fact that the underlying policy is generally more reasonable does not make me like it any more.

OTOH, I’ve had nearly 67 years now to get used to not liking the way Presidents act, or to get burned out on it anyway, so don’t expect me to freak out every time Trump says something stupid. The last President I actually LIKED was Reagan, and that was only until I learned about Iran Contra.

This nihilism is so tiring. "Trump is awful but nobody is good so therefore it doesn't matter and I can justify supporting him."

[Armchair]

NEWS BRIEF There appears to be a limit to just how liberal the Dutch are: This week a court sentenced to 30 days in prison a 44-year-old man who “intentionally insulted” King Willem-Alexander.

A Dutch man was sentenced to 30 days for calling King Willem-Alexander a murderer, rapist, and a thief.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dutch-king-insult/491498/

Gosh...maybe the US does do free speech better.

[Martinned]

I had a quick look, but I couldn't find the judgment online. So I can't say whether the sentence in question is suspended or not. (That's a detail that's pretty important for the offender, but which the press tends to ignore.)

Either way, I support specific protection for the King, because the Constitution prevents the King from participating in the public debate, or at least severely limits his ability to do so. Because the law prevents him from making a reply, it is only fair that it protects him in some other way.

If you think this is the same thing as a one year sentence for flag burning, you're funny in the head.

[Armchair]

"Either way, I support specific protection for the King"

OOOOHHH... So much for actual free speech.

[Martinned]

I support laws against defamation too. Does that make me an enemy of free speech too? Does it help that I think you should be able to swear on TV?

[Armchair]

Seems to me that when it comes to insulting the symbol of someone else's country, you're all about free speech. But when it comes to insulting the symbol of YOUR country, suddenly you're like "I support specific protection"

Makes you look like a hypocrite at best.

[Martinned]

I oppose any hypothetical law against the burning of the Dutch flag.

[Armchair]

The Netherlands does OK there. But the rest of Europe?

Austria: Flag desecration - up to 6 months in prison
France: - Up to 6 months in prison AND a 7500 Euro fine
Germany: Up to 3 years in prison.
Italy: Up to 2 years in Prison and a 10,000 Euro fine
Spain: No prison time but up to a 144,000 Euro fine

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

The US: Still no problem.

Perhaps you should focus your attention on your neighbors if you're so worried about Flag burning.

[Krayt]

What about insults to The King?

[Martinned]

That's what we're talking about here. I don't think it's right to send the King into the metaphorical boxing match of public debate with two hands tied behind his back. Sometimes the solution is to have the government speak on the King's behalf, and sometimes the solution is to punish certain speech if it's about the King.

[Frank Drackman]

Well FUCK your FAGGOT King!!!
In his Asshole, because Donkey Asshole is perfect for Your King!!!

[Voize of Reazon]

Google tells me the "specific protection for the King" law was finally repealed in 2020. It provided for up to 5 years imprisonment. That doesn't make it open season on royalty, the King still comes under a broader law that punishes insulting an on-duty government official with up to 4 months in lockup. Hey, baby steps.

[Frank Drackman]

Well FUCK your FAGGOT King!!!
In his Asshole, because Donkey Asshole is perfect for Your King!!!
I was trying to do "Modi Station Manager" from Howard Stern's "Private Parts" Movie, which was back when he was actually funny (1996)

Frank

[Reallynotbob]

I mean, we're deporting visa holders for saying Israel is doing genocide. Potato potahto.

[Riva]

By my count, almost half the posts here today so far are from you. Is this actually your job? Does it pay well to troll for a living? Who pays you? Is this something that slipped by after ending the USAID grifting ?

[Martinned]

Here is another clip of the President's personal thugs picking a fight with an opposition politician: https://bsky.app/profile/eric-reinhart.com/post/3m2crwovop226

[Frank Drackman]

Well FUCK your FAGGOT King!!!
In his Asshole, because Donkey Asshole is perfect for Your King!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Not kinder and gentler.

[Martinned]

Also of interest to people here who still naively believe that being a citizen means a person is safe from Trumpist persecution (as if that makes everything OK):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2025/10/01/trump-immigration-crackdown-lawsuit-courts-citizens-latino-alabama/256f259c-9eeb-11f0-af12-ae28224a8694_story.html

“It feels like there is nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want,” Leo said in a statement released by the law firm. “I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that.”

Venegas, who specializes in laying concrete foundations, says he was detained both times despite showing his Alabama-issued REAL ID driver’s license — a higher-security identity card available only to U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Immigration agents told him the ID card was fake, before eventually releasing him. He was released after about 20-30 minutes.

“Immigration officers are not above the law,” Institute for Justice attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili said in a statement. “Leo is a hardworking American citizen standing up for everyone’s right to work without being detained merely for the way they look or the job that they do.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Being a citizen didn't make you safe from Bidenist persecution, why would it make you safe from Trumpist persecution?

[Martinned]

Poor you. It must have been tough having a president you disagreed with. Clearly you had no choice but to vote for a corrupt fascist thug.

[Mr. Bumble]

Brett isn't in the UK and so didn't vote for Herr Starmtrooper.

[Martinned]

Oh sod off, you bore.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did have a choice: I could vote for the Republican, the Democrat, one of the candidates who had no chance at all, or 30 minutes of extra free time. That last option gets more attractive every election.

See my comment above: I've NEVER had a President I agreed with!

Maybe if the Democratic party would just puke up a candidate who wasn't openly hostile to a basic civil liberty I might treat voting Democratic as a realistic option.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you think every Dem President since I could vote wants to put you in a camp.

Don’t pretend you have an open mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Don’t pretend you have an open mind."
And you should stop pretending that you have a mind at all.

[Reallynotbob]

ooooo sick burn bro

[Armchair]

He was stopped for less than an 1/2 hour. No jail. Not even put in a police car.

[Martinned]

Oh, that's fine then.

[Armchair]

It's pretty weak sauce for supposed "persecution".

[Martinned]

Repeatedly being detained for half an hour isn't exactly a Terry stop, is it?

[Armchair]

"Repeatedly" meaning he was stopped once, then stopped a couple weeks later, likely by a completely different set of agents.

Just coincidence or unlucky.

[Martinned]

Yeah, coincidence or unlucky. Definitely didn't have anything to do with the colour of his skin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You'd think that ICE would have a database and the second set could have radioed in his name and such and found "'Yep, we found that he was a citizen on date x" -- they have the same thing for local police a record of every plate that was run and by whom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Repeatedly being detained for half an hour isn't exactly a Terry stop, is it?"

Unfortunately it can be. It would be nice if SCOTUS would clarify an upper limit for a Terry spot at something like 15 minutes, but I doubt they're inclined to, and currently SCOTUS would probably make it a lot more.

[not guilty]

"Repeatedly being detained for half an hour isn't exactly a Terry stop, is it?"

Even in the context of a Terry stop, this kind of treatment would violate the Fourth Amendment. As SCOTUS opined in Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (decided the same day as Terry v. Ohio):

The police officer is not entitled to seize and search every person whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes inquiries. Before he places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so. In the case of the self-protective search for weapons, he must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, supra.

Id., at 64. The Court there elaborated:

Even assuming arguendo that there were adequate grounds to search Sibron for weapons, the nature and scope of the search conducted by Patrolman Martin were so clearly unrelated to that justification as to render the heroin inadmissible. The search for weapons approved in Terry consisted solely of a limited patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault. Only when he discovered such objects did the officer in Terry place his hands in the pockets of the men he searched. In this case, with no attempt at an initial limited exploration for arms, Patrolman Martin thrust his hand into Sibron's pocket and took from him envelopes of heroin. His testimony shows that he was looking for narcotics, and he found them. The search was not reasonably limited in scope to the accomplishment of the only goal which might conceivably have justified its inception -- the protection of the officer by disarming a potentially dangerous man. Such a search violates the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the sanctity of the person against unreasonable intrusions on the part of all government agents.

Id., at 65-66.

[Moderation4ever]

The man had a valid ID and so he should not have been stopped at all.

[Michael P]

How were federal agents supposed to know it was more valid than this one? https://nypost.com/2025/09/30/us-news/new-york-issued-drivers-license-to-migrant-but-didnt-require-first-name/

[jb]

Those were presumably not RealIDs

[Michael P]

It was. You can tell by the star in the upper right hand corner.

[jb]

Good point. This is actually not the same story as the one I was remembering, so I didn't take a close look at the article.

In this case, though, NYS says the holder is legally in the country and complied with RealID requirements. What leads you to believe the ID is invalid?

[Mr. Bumble]

How do you have Real ID with a missing name? (Well, unless you are a celebrity who goes by only one name.)

[jb]

It's not missing a name; you can legally have only one name. You don't need to be a celebrity for this to happen. Although it's becoming less common, people are still born into societies that use mononyms.

For example, this Indonesian weightlifter has had only one name his whole life:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triyatno

[Krayt]

Most single-name celebrities are just a stage name anyway.

[Life of Brian]

It's not missing a name; you can legally have only one name.

That's fine, but RealID is not an entitlement. Well-known people with more unique names like Triyatno are no doubt less problematic, but I think there's a reasonable question whether bringing in a pile of papers that all just say, e.g., "Sanchez" or "Juan" should be enough to get you a starred ID.

[Mr. Bumble]

Especially for a CDL.

[jb]

That's fine, but RealID is not an entitlement. Well-known people with more unique names like Triyatno are no doubt less problematic, but I think there's a reasonable question whether bringing in a pile of papers that all just say, e.g., "Sanchez" or "Juan" should be enough to get you a starred ID.

Maybe? Seems like a legit policy discussion, but I'm also not sure it's a big problem. I'm open to evidence one way or the other. In any case, though, it seems like both state and federal rules allow for mononyms on RealIDs now. NY is saying they followed the federal rules, and no one seems to be contradicting that.

I mentioned Triyanto as an example because although he's well known, he doesn't have a mononym because he's well known. That's his birth name, and other people in his culture who are less famous are in the same situation.

[ducksalad]

The name isn't really the primary basis for the ID; it can't be a country where there are thousands of identically named John Smiths and Jose Garcias.

[Life of Brian]

The name isn't really the primary basis for the ID; it can't be [in] a country where there are thousands of identically named John Smiths and Jose Garcias.

First/middle/last name combinations of course don't eliminate dupes and corresponding potential for fraud, but they do reduce them drastically. (Case in point: the precise estimates vary by data source, but the general consensus seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million Johns and 2.5 million Smiths in the US, but only about 50k John Smiths.)

If I can get a RealID with my picture and the name "Bob" on it just because I show a birth certificate and a couple of bills that all say "Bob," then it seems like we've just created another instance of security theater.

[jb]

If I can get a RealID with my picture and the name "Bob" on it just because I show a birth certificate and a couple of bills that all say "Bob," then it seems like we've just created another instance of security theater.

From my limited research, it seems like there's way fewer than 50K Triyatnos, so I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve.

The point of a Real ID is to verify your identity, your residence and your legal status. If you have paperwork that shows all of those things to be true and it all says that you are Bob, what's the problem? Unless MANY more people started using mononyms, it wouldn't even make them particularly less distinctive than many name combos.

[Life of Brian]

The point of a Real ID is to verify your identity, your residence and your legal status. If you have paperwork that shows all of those things to be true and it all says that you are Bob, what's the problem?

I'd tweak that to say the point of a Real ID is to require enough documentation from enough different sources that all need to reasonably match in order to be sufficiently confident that the person in front of you actually came across that documentation legitimately. By definition, less unique names decrease that confidence level. If I'm trying to game the system, assembling a stack of semi-legitimate papers with a single, generic name (where I probably can just white out the additional names that don't match) is going to be a much easier lift than a full name.

Unless MANY more people started using mononyms, it wouldn't even make them particularly less distinctive than many name combos.

Again, it might be helpful to think of this from the perspective of actually trying to deter fraudulent actors rather than how few legitimate people there may be in this situation. There's no way for the uber-highly-trained DMV employee looking at the pile of papers and checking boxes to know whether the person standing in front of them uses a mononym, how common or uncommon it is, etc. All they can really evaluate is whether the pile of papers appears to line up, and that's indisputably easier when you allow the universe of potential matches to skyrocket by allowing only a single, widely-used name to suffice.

[Nelson]

“ How were federal agents supposed to know it was more valid than this one?”

Unless you have some reason to doubt it (and no, being hispanic at a construction site doesn’t count), the point is that having a RealID should be assumed to prove something. Otherwise what’s it there for?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kabuki Theater, like the rest of the Homeland Security stuff...

[Armchair]

And...how are you supposed to verify that ID without stopping the person?

[Brett Bellmore]

You could at least implement an "Already checked out, release immediately" list.

[Michael P]

One still must stop a person to determine whether they're on that list.

Was he detained for "20-30 minutes" the first or second time? (The quote doesn't say, so I infer it was only the first time.) If he was released quickly the second time, they might have used the kind of list that you suggest.

[Armchair]

You can, but...

Let's really run through the math here. You detain the individual. That takes...maybe 5 minutes, if you're lucky. You get their ID. You walk back to your car or whatever. You type the ID in.

Ideally, you'd have some sort of centralized database where "everything" is. But you don't really have that. Instead you have a bunch of disparate different databases and lists. Including a new list that is "Already checked out, release immediately." If you're ICE, you run them through the "Very dangerous, apprehend immediately, extreme caution" list first. Then the state databases. Then the "person of interest" list. Then, after all that, the new "Already checked out, release immediately". All of this is via a wireless, phone-based connection. No LAN lines, no wireless. Hopefully you have decent signal. Or you call it in to the office, they manually input it in there, hopefully you're not waiting because multiple officers have called in simultaneously.

Then you walk back and talk to the person.

How long does all that take?

[Dr. Ed 2]

With or without your local server crashing and having to reboot?

Don't laugh...

[Frank Drackman]

With the chips from the Covid shots? Oh yeah, Ill-legal Immigrants weren't required to get them.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm not sure what you do all day, Armchair, but I sell my time for a living like a lot of people. 20-30 minutes of detention (plus the disruption) would be a major problem.

And lets be honest -- white folk in the Villages would Karen all the way out if an officer disputed their REAL ID for 5 minutes let alone twice in two weeks for 25 minutes each time.

[Armchair]

I mean, the average traffic stop is like 15-20 minutes, according to the internet. Is it a "major problem" if you're pulled over....and then let go after 20 minutes? Most people go... "well, good thing nothing happened".

[Reallynotbob]

Traffic stops require individualized reasonable suspicion or greater before the stop takes place. ICE just rolls up and starts detaining.

[wvattorney13]

All 4A detentions are fact intensive to see whether the officer has the required reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop and the duration of it.

Without full information, I don't think either of us can say whether this was proper or outrageous or whatever point in between. I'm certainly not going to accept his lawyer's characterization of it at face value.

I will say that officers testing you by accusing you of having a fake ID to see how you react is normal police work.

[Sarcastr0]

All 4A detentions are fact intensive to see whether the officer has the required reasonable articulable suspicion

This take would just read illegal arrests out of the law.

Courts must rely on a totality of the circumstances, but there is such a thing as a clear enough violation it's not going to require a full inquest.

[wvattorney13]

"This take would just read illegal arrests out of the law." How? I said you have to look at the facts? That makes all arrests legal?

Plus, we don't know what happened here. For all we know, this was a consensual interaction. An officer can approach you on the street and ask for your ID without any suspicion. You are free to tell him no but there is nothing illegal about such an encounter.

Again, we simply don't know what happened. In no way is this "clear enough" that we don't even hear the other side.

[Sarcastr0]

we don't know what happened here

What additional information would you need to think ICE was in the wrong?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now there's some burden-shifting.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think ICE deserves the benefit of the doubt. If they didn't violate Venegas' 4A rights, it was by accident given their indiscriminate behavior in Chicago, LA, and everywhere else. This isn't a one-off--it's a pattern. Not only are they using race as reasonable suspicion, but they went all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure they can do that. When they wrongfully detain a US citizen because they "look illegal," the next step is to claim obstruction to validate their actions after the fact.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"All 4A detentions are fact intensive to see whether the officer has the required reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop and the duration of it."

I'm not sure I understand this. They're not supposed to detain people unless they already have reasonable suspicion, unless one of the exceptions like a checkpoint applies.

[wvattorney13]

Yes, agreed. The officer has to have RAS before the stop (unless it is a consensual encounter--see above) but my point is that we only have one side of the story here filtered through the person's lawyer who is looking for a pay day.

Maybe the lawyer is right and this is an outrageous and unconstitutional detention. Maybe it is permissible. We don't know (and a court won't know) until all of the relevant facts are analyzed and that includes the officer's story. We don't just say "ICE bad" and leave it there.

[shawn_dude]

"Venegas was released after more than an hour, according to the law firm." --PBS

ICE tried to claim he was obstructing them but videos by coworkers showed Venegas was nowhere near another person when arrested. I suppose they should have booked him for "wasting police time."

I don't think being detained by federal agents for more than an hour simply because you're Latino is a small thing. Kavanaugh stops are just fascism in motion.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Institute for Justice attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili"

The Institute for Justice? Aren't they a right-wing group?

[Nelson]

Nope, never. Although these days they are apparently leftists and Democrats, like the Cato Institute and FIRE. That should tell you all you need to know about the extremism of the MAGA movement.

If you believe in individual rights, the rule of law, and free trade, you’re basically a Communist in the eyes of MAGA. The Heritage Foundation, according to them, is moderate.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, the new French PM, who only just announced the "new" cabinet, has now resigned after less than a month in office.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/06/france-pm-sebastien-lecornu-resigns

[Frank Drackman]

Well FUCK your FAGGOT King!!!
In his Asshole, because Donkey Asshole is perfect for Your King!!!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A whole month? That's a lifetime in French Cabinet terms.

[Martinned]

It's actually a new record for the 5th republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_France#20th_century_%E2%80%93_21st_century

(The next shortest term was Barnier's 99 days last year.)

[Brett Bellmore]

So, scotusblog is dead now? Looks like the domain is parked.

[Mr. Bumble]

The only thing that is current is the calendar.

[Life of Brian]

The domain was created on October 4 way back when, so it probably just expired. Wouldn't surprise me if the renewal email went to this guy and nobody else knew to think about it.

[John F. Carr]

The site was acquired by Dispatch Media last spring. It's easy to overlook assigning somebody to keep track of domains and certificates.

[shawn_dude]

Uh, no. It's not easy for a media company that runs multiple websites and pays for domains to do that. It's actually grossly negligent since these domains are assets with actual value (according to GAAP.)

If that's what happened... yikes. That's not good. What also may have happened is a standard domain hyjacking--which is bad too but at least there's a bad actor in there trying to steal it rather than some brain-dead doofus forgetting to pay a $40 bill.

[Life of Brian]

What also may have happened is a standard domain hyjacking

Negative. Unfortunately neither of the major archive sites took a snapshot at the right time, but it was redirecting to a stock Network Solutions page that actually said in small print in the corner that the domain had expired, which lined up with the Oct. 4 expiration date I saw in the DNS record.

It's actually grossly negligent since these domains are assets with actual value

They absolutely have value, but grossly negligent might be overstating it a bit since there's a 30-day grace period for reinstatement. Stuff happens; they fixed it the same day.

[Josh R]

https://www.scotusblog.com/ works for me.

[Mr. Bumble]

It didn't earlier, but does now.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, looking at the DNS update timestamps it looks like they got it resolved in just over 7 hours. Not bad, particularly if the prior administrator didn't work there any more.

[darkknight9]

Are we done yet?

[Martinned]

This week is Nobel Prize announcement week.

The Nobel prize in physiology or medicine 2025 has been awarded to three scientists for their work on how the immune system is kept in check and prevented from attacking our own body.

Mary E Brunkow, Fred Ramsdell and Shimon Sakaguchi have been awarded the prize “for their discoveries concerning peripheral immune tolerance”.

[bernard11]

Shimon Sakaguchi?

Interesting name.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Funny, you don't *look* Jewish."

[Reallynotbob]

Fake science, duh. The medical-industrial complex came up with the "immune system" years ago to sell us penicillin and polio shots but even doctors admit we don't need them, so.... durr.

[Nelson]

Did Donald Trump get nominated for the Peace Prize? We all know how peaceful he is. Just look at his military action against his own citizens. So much peace.

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in Ireland the Fianna Fail candidate for the presidency dropped out after it emerged that he had failed to return a rent overpayment of €3,300 (£2,865) when he was a landlord about 16 years ago, when he was in financial difficulty.

Let that sink in.

That leaves two candidates, given that the period for nominations is already closed:

The biggest shock in a presidential campaign in living memory narrowed the contest to Heather Humphreys, a former cabinet minister who is running for the ruling centre-right Fine Gael party, and Catherine Connolly, an outspoken pro-Palestinian voice who is backed by Sinn Féin and small leftwing opposition parties.
(...)
Connolly, 68, from Galway, would bring a strong leftwing voice to that tradition. She has assailed neoliberal economics and said Hamas is “part of the fabric” of the Palestinian people. She has accused Nato of militarism and likened Germany’s increased defence spending to the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler rearmed the country.

Humphreys, 62, has faced scrutiny over her record as a minister in governments that presided over a housing crisis. A Presbyterian from the border county of Monaghan, she has also been criticised over her inability to speak Irish but said her Protestant heritage could help win over Northern Ireland’s unionists in a united Ireland.
(...)
A poll taken before Gavin’s exit gave Connolly 32% support and Humphreys 23%, with Gavin on 15%.

[Bob from Ohio]

"backed by Sinn Féin"

Very on brand for Ireland to elect the IRA's candidate, since they back Hamas so heavily. But the current leprechaun president doesn't sound to different from Connolly.

[Martinned]

Sinn Féin is the leading party of the left in Ireland, and has been for some time. Given that there was a carefully negotiated peace in Northern Ireland (note: not a peace imposed by diktat without talking to all parties to the conflict) the [provisional] IRA has been disbanded, and Sinn Féin has become a normal political party.

[Malika la Maize]

The British authorities said early Sunday that they were investigating a fire at a mosque on Britain’s southern coast as a suspected arson attack and treating it as a hate crime.

Firefighters were called to the mosque in the town of Peacehaven just before 10 p.m. on Saturday night, the Sussex police said in a statement. It said the blaze damaged the front entrance of the building and a vehicle parked outside, but no one was harmed.

The attack came at a time of heightened anxiety after a deadly terrorist attack at a synagogue in Manchester on Thursday, and as anti-Muslim hate is on the rise in Britain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/05/world/europe/peacehaven-arson-mosque-england.html

[Malika la Maize]

Enter President Donald Trump. At no point, in his time in public office, has Trump ever acted as if he were president of the whole United States. He acts, instead, as if he is president only of Red America, and even then, only those states that backed him in the presidential election. Like too many Americans, Trump sees the binary color scheme of our quadrennial Electoral College maps and thinks that it corresponds to reality. He seems unaware that he has equally passionate supporters in the “blue” state of California and in the “red" states of the Deep South.

This week we’ve seen both him and his White House speak and act in ways that demonstrate their contempt for those Americans who opposed his 2024 campaign for the Oval Office.

And on Wednesday, Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, announced that he would use the government shutdown to defund Democratic-led states and cities of federal investments in infrastructure and green energy. “Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” Vought said on X, naming 16 states that backed Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Vought also said the White House would be withholding $18 billion in funds for infrastructure projects in the New York metropolitan area.

Trump, as well, warned that if Democrats do not support the Republican bill to continue to fund the government, his administration will cut Democratic priorities. “We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want, and they’d be Democrat things,” he said on Tuesday.

With his threats to cut their funds and occupy their cities with armed forces, Trump seems to see Democratic-led states — and the people in them — less as constituents to which he has a set of larger obligations and more as enemies to be pacified and defeated. For Trump, there is no whole people of the United States. There are only his people and his states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/04/opinion/trump-responsible-president-job-military.html

[Michael P]

A boat "carrying about 10 civilians" but no aid. Was the idea to reinforce Hamas with the people on board?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-man-captained-gaza-aid-vessel-now-held-21084289.php

[hobie]

Where was the part about aid to Hamas?

[Nelson]

In his head.

[Martinned]

The war on the rule of law in the US continues:

The home of South Carolina Circuit Court judge Diane Goodstein was set on fire after she had reportedly received death threats.
(...)
The 69-year-old judge had received death threats in the weeks leading up to the fire, multiple sources told FITSNews. Last month, Goodstein had temporarily blocked the state’s election commission from releasing its voter files to the Department of Justice, a decision that was openly criticized by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon and later reversed by the state Supreme Court. The DOJ had sought the information, including names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and social security numbers, of over three million registered voters as part of President Donald Trump’s March executive order restricting non-citizens from registering to vote. (Non-citizens are already not allowed to vote in federal and state elections.)

https://time.com/7323442/south-carolina-judge-diane-goodstein-house-fire-trump-political-violence/

[Mr. Bumble]

So you've already determined (from several thousand miles away) that this was an arson?

[Martinned]

I have not. I have simply referred you to an article in Time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fair enough, but that opening line should have given away the game.
"... was set on fire after she had reportedly received death threats."
Set on fire? Reportedly received death threats?
Set by and reported by whom?

[Frank Drackman]

Time Magazine is still around?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And who lit it, and why.

No one else was upset with the judge?

[Mr. Bumble]

So far there is no proof that it was "lit". An early report mention an explosion.
As always lots of speculation.

[Nelson]

That seems to be a much looser standard than you and the Trumpkins usually apply. Remember how Charlie Kirk’s murderer was immediately and confidently declared a trans person?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tranny, Furry --- close....

[John 4]

Another in the string of murders and political violence from the right wing in 2025.

[Sarcastr0]

Not at all clear yet.

[DDHarriman]

Good boy.

[Krayt]

It can take days for the fog of war to start clearing. Until then, confirmation bias could be a secondary market on betting markets.

[Bob from Ohio]

"war on the rule of law"

"I have not. I have simply referred you to an article in Time."

Stop crawfishing. Its only a "war on the rule of law" if it was arson.

Stand by your implications, you weasel.

[hobie]

Another antisemitic terrorist ANTIFA tranny at work again.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW looks like gold might break $4000.00 today (currently $3944.59).
Who or what is driving the price surge?

[Martinned]

Historically US Treasuries were the safe asset of last resort. Whenever the world got risky, that's where the money went. Paradoxically that even used to be the case if it was the US government that had people worried. But now the Regime has pushed that mechanism over the edge, and investors are looking for something that is safer than US Treasuries. I'm not sure why they would think gold is the answer, but a substantial group of investors do.

[hobie]

I guess gold was the crypto before there was crypto: there is no assets backing the yellow metal, it just derives value from human perception

[Moderation4ever]

Good point. What gold has that crypto doesn't is history. You can hold gold, something you cannot do with crypto.

[Brett Bellmore]

It also has actual uses, which puts a floor under its value. While crypto has no floor.

I'd compare crypto to tulip bulbs, except that you could plant those and get nice flowers.

[Krayt]

Although dependent on perceived value, it mainains that as a physical object. Crypto could go bye bye tomorrow and you've got bits in a database somewhere.

[bernard11]

I wonder how much gold actually gets used for commercial purposes, as opposed to how much is sitting in various vaults.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is gold mainly used for?

Gold is primarily used to make jewelry, such as necklaces and rings. Much of it is also purchased as a safe investment, and another portion is used in industry, such as electronics, or in medicine, particularly for dental care.
Distribution of global demand

Demand for gold comes from several sectors. Jewelry remains a major player, especially in India and China. Industry, particularly electronics, also uses it quite a bit. And then there's investment, with ingots, coins, and central bank purchases. It is this diversified demand that makes the gold market so interesting.
Sector Percentage of demand Example
Jewelry 50% Necklaces, rings
Investments 40% Ingots, coins, ETFs
Industry 10% Electronic components, medical applications
https://www.goldmarket.fr/en/gold-consumption-in-the-world-by-country/

[Mr. Bumble]

"... it just derives value from human perception."
isn't that the case with everything?

[hobie]

Pretty much, yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes and no.

At the limit, I guess you could say that food and water derive all their value from human perception, because people could in theory at least decide there wasn't any point in not starving to death.

But I think we can break things down into three rough groups:

1. Existential needs that have value to anyone not suicidal.
2. Items with mundane utility.
3. Items that neither address existential needs nor have mundane utility.

Now, in principle at least, crypto could function as a real currency, and thus exhibit mundane utility. But I don't think any of the existing cryptocurrencies actually are that useful as a currency, having too large of transaction costs.

So it's all tulip frenzy.

[bernard11]

But I don't think any of the existing cryptocurrencies actually are that useful as a currency, having too large of transaction costs.

So it's all tulip frenzy.

I agree. And they won't be useful as currency for some time, if ever.

Money is, more or less, a social construct. It works because everyone agrees that it does. (There is also the significant fact that you have to pay taxes in the government's designated currency.)

For that to happen, people and businesses have to trust it, and the current setup would have to be completely overhauled, made transparent, and yes, be closely regulated for that to happen.

[Michael P]

Only in a frivolously reductive sense. Things normally have value if they are useful and/or scarce. Bitcoin has no inherent utility, and its scarcity is artificial. In contrast, gold is naturally (relatively) scarce and it has chemically useful properties that would give it value independent of its perceived beauty. Even tulip bulbs were more useful than Bitcoin.

[Commenter_XY]

Uncertainty, erosion of value of dollar = Who or what is driving the price surge?

[Bwaaah]

Yep. Declining confidence in the dollar.

The de facto international reserve currency is under the control of a country whose culture recognizes no limits to its debt-worthiness.

When the credit crunch "crisis" comes, the debtors, living on borrowed money from everybody else, will blame everybody but themselves. And they'll pass laws to "make sure it never happens again," as if you can fix stupid.

The same people who never paid for their "mortgage crisis" are passively accepting their continued great taking, as if the world of capital runs on mere promises.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Declining confidence in the dollar."

By idiots. You think big institutional investors, hedge funds and billionaires invest in GOLD? Gold fluctuates wildly in value. No sane investor has a big gold position.

[Nelson]

Which is why do many wingnut conservatives praise it. Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and various other lunatic-fringe opinion monkeys love it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gold is a form of insurance, that's very portable and compact, and nicely divisible, which means you don't have to be wealthy to start accumulating it.

But if you ARE wealthy, there are better insurance investments, like farmland.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... that’s very portable and compact,..."
Only in small amounts and at today's prices. See Die Hard III.

[Bunny495]

There seems to be a direct relationship to what an ounce of gold would buy to how many dollars it would take to buy the same thing over time. I can remember buying a Coke for a nickel (actually I bought RC Cola cuz you got twice as much for the same price) and now the same Coke costs a buck.

As for the crypto stuff I have bought very small amounts for online purchases from a small but growing number of vendors who offer real discounts for using it. I have also seen claims that things like Stablecoin will wind up replacing credit cards due to them not having the 3-7% hit that goes to the credit card issuer. This drives governments crazy since it is similar to under the table cash in terms of being hidden from taxation.

Cliff's Notes version is inflation sucks big red donkey dicks.

[Brett Bellmore]

A Short History of Prices, Inflation since the Founding of the U.S.

As you can see, between 1790 and 1933 there was essentially no cumulative inflation. There WAS inflation from time to time, balanced by intervals of equal deflation. Per the link, inflation generally happened when the 'gold window' was closed, deflation brought prices back when it opened again.

After we went off the gold standard, there were no more intervals of deflation, inflation just kept adding up.

So, from 1790-1933, $100 went to $141.30.

From 1790-2025? $100 to $3511.39.

The gold standard, whatever you may complain about, did work.

[Mr. Bumble]

The ratchet of inflation now only goes in one direction.

[bernard11]

The gold standard, whatever you may complain about, did work.

Yeah. It was great at inducing recessions.

If you look at your chart and another of recessions you will find considerable coincidence of times.

Also, it's strange that you yearn for deflation. It's pretty much an economic disaster.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've lived through 18% inflation, and I assure you that's pretty bad, too; You lose a fifth of the value of your savings in the space of a year.

The gold standard was no more inducing recessions than going on the wagon induces hangovers. Government would deficit spend, producing an unsustainable surge in economic activity, then you'd get a crash when they had to stop and pay down the debt again.

So, don't stop? Great idea, just keep that bender going forever, and you never get a hangover!

[bernard11]

Brett,

The gold standard tends to be deflationary, and deflation causes recessions. It also seems to lead to more, not less, volatility in inflation/deflation.

Your knowledge of economic history is lacking.

And what happens when you have a fixed money supply and are trying to encourage economic growth? See a problem there?

[Bunny495]

The choice is favoring debtors or savers. See a problem there? There was massive growth pre 1933. It did get supercharged once the federal government started the printing presses running 24/7 and became even worse when the feds could use computers to shift the decimal point several digits.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's kind of the thing, with a gold standard you do NOT have a fixed money supply. You have a gradually increasing money supply. They keep mining more, remember? But, yes, with good economic growth you get deflation. The horror. [/sarc]

The real weakness of the gold standard is that it's terrible for governments that want to run perpetual deficits. Inflation is lovely from a government perspective, the government gets that seigniorage profit, and they can convince most people it's somebody else's fault.

[bernard11]

You have a gradually increasing money supply. They keep mining more, remember?

Well, yes, but it's not necessarily gradual, so the increase does not match the needs of the economy. A money supply that fluctuates with no reference to economic conditions is not a good thing.

Also, those who decide how much to mine do not necessarily have the best interests of the US, or other countries, in mind. China is the world's largest gold producer; Russia and Australia have the largest amounts of unmined gold.

And if you still don't understand the problem with deflation you should give up talking about economics until you learn some.

[Bunny495]

FDR started the ball rolling with fiat money but Nixon added the finishing touch by recalling all the silver certificates. In general history divides Americas' inflation into three periods, pre 1933, 1933 to 1971, and 1971 to present.

While both of the last two periods are similar in terms of favoring debtors over savers the worst inflation occurred right after Nixon went completely fiat money.

[Moderation4ever]

I read an interesting editorial in my local newspaper the Wisconsin State Journal by Russ Castronovo, Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin. He spoke about the impact of today's environment stifling speech on campuses That pressures from both the right and the left that makes student and professors reluctant to speak. I would note that watch lists like those started by Charlie Kirk have contributed to the stifling environment. But what struck me most in the essay was Prof. Castronovo point that while so much time and energy is spent talking about speech on campuses, the impact of campus speech by students or professors is really minimal. It is really the vast amount of material on the internet that creates the greatest threat. We have not had shooting or bombing based on something heard in a lecture hall. We have had far too many based on weak minded individuals influenced by things read or heard on-line.

[hobie]

That reminds me, both Ohio and Wisconsin are poised to redraw their congressional districts for the next election cycle. Gonna be a lot of lost MAGA seats

[Brett Bellmore]

Last analysis I saw said that, if every state turned up gerrymandering to the max, Republicans would be the big winners, because the Democratic states are largely already gerrymandered.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me guess, every district will include part of Cleveland?
Funny that "45/47/(48?)" won Ohio by 600,000 votes, gonna be hard to spread enough of those Knee-Grow Votes among 15 districts that currently are 10-5 Repubiclown.
Wisconsin was a lot closer, and to Cums-a-lot's credit she actually cam-pained in the State, unlike Hillary Rodman (might explain things) but there's only 2 Repubiclown seats to "lose"

Frank

[Bunny495]

The problem with redrawing districts is that dems tend to live very close to each other (read ghettos in big cities that often vote 90%+ for dems) while pubs tend to be way more spread out and the districts the pubs win are often like 55% wins.

While the SC has opined it is OK for the redrawing to be political as a practical matter there is a limit to just how much they will put up with. The house district I live in was recently redrawn and the dems lost a seat; but the courts let it ride. Reason was the district favoring dems was a couple of hundred miles East to West but in places was only as wide as Interstate I-10 North to South. Basically it was black sections of Jacksonville and Tallahassee connected by I-10, not a good look.

[Michael P]

You mean watch lists like those pushed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and similar groups, which have been listing normal people alongside KKK and similar groups for longer than Charlie Kirk was politically active.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/virginia-man-sentenced-25-years-prison-shooting-security-guard-family-research is an example of what SPLC inspired.

[Bwaaah]

It's been known for decades (by anybody who cares to know) that the Southern Poverty Law Center is an opportunistic leftist donation-grabbing machine that uses its great name to capitalize on white guilt. It smears people, like gentleman and scholar Charles Murray (co-author of "The Bell Curve"), as a "White Nationalist," because that appeals to its narrow leftist audience.

For the people who love to shout, "THAT'S RACIST!," the SPLC is the white-coated cheerleader.

See:
How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? (The Atlantic)
The church of Morris Dees - How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance (by Ken Silverstein)

[Moderation4ever]

Are you looking to prove the point of the article that people are much more likely to be influenced by things on the internet than they are speech at universities.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I would note that watch lists like those started by Charlie Kirk have contributed to the stifling environment. "

Responding to speech with more speech is really that stifling?

Lots of professors complained about the list, but then they undercut their claims by writing TPUSA and asking to be put on the list. I don't know of anyone that wrote SPLC or the ADL and asked to be put on their lists.

[shawn_dude]

Death threats are speech that stifles. Trump just had to text one disparaging text about his VP and the next thing you know there's a gallows being built on the front lawn and a mob is chanting "hang Mike Pence!"

People ending up on lists pushed by christo-fascist activists like Kirk make people nervous because you never know where those lists will end up. Maybe you'll get get a lot of hate email or maybe the government will threaten your professional license or your employer because you disparaged the president. Next thing you know, you're unemployed and radioactive in the job market. We've seen this during the McCarthy era so we know the impacts this will have on speech--which is why it's done in the first place.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is just the "criticizing my speech violates my free speech" argument.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We don't know who built that rickety "gallows."

[Moderation4ever]

For those who don't yet think that the masked, unidentified ICE agents are now America's secret police I believe the September 30th raid in Chicago should remove all doubts. The military style raid, the rounding up of people regardless of their status, the treatment of children, and the trashing of property all seem consistent with secret police. it really is time to start thinking about dissolving ICE and moving their work to regular law enforcement.

[Commenter_XY]

Actually, it is time to tell ICE to ramp up deportation activities. They're woefully behind schedule.

[SRG2]

Which takes priority over the Constitution. citizens' rights, etc.

Provided the goon squads only go after "those people", you don't care.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've commented in the past about this dynamic, in the context of drug law enforcement: When you have a crime without easily identified victims, generally nobody directly involved in the crime is going to have any interest in reporting it to the police.

As a result, the police have no good option for enforcement, most commissions inherently go undiscovered.

The usual response to this is to ramp up penalties, so that the product of penalty times probability of being caught goes high enough to achieve deterrence. The problem is that this typically requires penalties high enough to be 8th amendment violations.

So they resort to informal penalties.

That I happen to approve of immigration law enforcement doesn't prevent this dynamic from taking hold. I think Trump is actually leaning into it, to tell the truth, trying to put enough of a scare into illegal immigrants to get most of them to self deport without having to be caught.

Doesn't make me particularly happy, frankly, to see this.

[Sarcastr0]

This was not a penalty; it was a military style raid aimed at citizens and noncitizens alike.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whoosh. IN freaking FORMAL penalty. As in, "the process is the punishment".

[Sarcastr0]

A military-style raid is not process.
And the majority of people in that building were not guilty of anything.

A raid is a raid. It is never, and will never be, an 'informal penalty.

What the fuck.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A raid is a raid. It is never, and will never be, an 'informal penalty. "

What, are you genuinely a moron?

I'm not APPROVING of this dynamic, quite the contrary. I'm just recognizing what is going on: The government, when it can't easily find people breaking a law, goes overboard in terms of abusive enforcement, to replace certainty of detection with over the top "penalties", like suspects "tripping on the stairs", or prison rape.

Is this just performative incomprehension?

[Sarcastr0]

You're doing telepathy again.

I don't think describing a raid as punishment is accurate. Nor is it useful.

[Moderation4ever]

So it is acceptable to treat children as they were treated to make the process the punishment?

[Michael P]

Yup. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." It happens when the formal system is subverted and becomes incapable of doing its job.

[Sarcastr0]

No formal system has been subverted. Trump is in charge of all 3 branches of government.

Acting like a governmental military-style raid is punishment...that's like beyond police state.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump is in charge of all 3 branches of government. "

Hysterics.

[ThePublius]

"Trump is in charge of all 3 branches of government."

Are you smoking crack?

[Michael P]

Probably. That kind of claim is especially weird because people like him are quick to say that these crimes should be prosecuted by state or local authorities instead of the feds.

[Sarcastr0]

So what 'the formal system is subverted?

You seem to be saying that's the excuse for why the federal government has gotta do flashy fashy military-style raids in order to punish...blue state residents?

So what system are you talking about?

[Life of Brian]

I just read CNN's take on this, and when you strip away all the histrionics it sounds like they swept a slum apartment generally controlled by TdA and methodically worked through it to determine who was naughty and who was nice.

I understand every detail is going to be pumped up to sound maximally prejudicial, but I'm having a hard time getting from "cleaning up gang-infested projects" to "secret police."

Are there any specific things ICE actually did that you believe to have been outside the bounds of the law?

[Nelson]

So the masked police state version of “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out”? Lovely.

Sure, innocent citizens and their children may have been swept up and had their homes damaged, but that’s just the price they pay for living near criminals.

[windycityattorney]

Kicking in/damaging the doors of every apartment? Zip tying children? Trashing all the apartments once inside? Seizing property from the inhabitants?

From what I read, it was done without a warrant (i am open to being corrected on this point*). So yes. So long as Payton v New York and related precedents are still good law... ALL OF IT was not within the bounds of the 'law.'

The real reason ICE did this was because they were getting footage for a promotional ad. Armed men rappelling down from helicopters etc... complete overkill theatrics. Like the stupid videos of CECOT they did. Propaganda to please dear leader. It's disgusting.

*Even if they had a warrant, how could it be particularized to enter every apartment in the building? At least 30 or 40 people in the apartments were US citizens. It was a pretty big building.

[Life of Brian]

Kicking in/damaging the doors of every apartment? Zip tying children? Trashing all the apartments once inside? Seizing property from the inhabitants?

I'll read any source you'd like to provide, but even the CNN article I cited that was generally just based on the most dramatic descriptions from the inhabitants they could find (and certainly not from anyone that actually appreciated the sharp increase in odds that they would actually be able to live semi-peacefully in their own apartment building) certainly doesn't support "every" and "all," nor "seizing property from the inhabitants."

From what I read, it was done without a warrant (i am open to being corrected on this point*)

I actually don't see this point being picked up by the major media, which I guess I'd find a bit surprising if it were really correct.

Even if they had a warrant, how could it be particularized to enter every apartment in the building?

This isn't my day job so I don't pretend to know how situations like that work, but I don't think I'm incorrect that law enforcement historically has and pragmatically has to have a way to root out gang infestation in project housing like this without the members just playing apartment hopscotch, holing up in innocent residents' apartments with guns to their heads, etc.

[windycityattorney]

The particularity requirement of a 4th amendment warrant is contained in the words of the 4th amendment itself.

So an overbroad warrant would be something like "you can search any house on the entire block" whereas a particularized warrant would be "you can search 2420 First Street."

In a large apartment building, where each apartment is a separate dwelling, overbroad would be "you can enter every single apartment" where particularized would be "you can search apts 5, 9, 15, and 40" where each of those apartments is supported by affidavit showing probable cause as to each.

Even hotel rooms get 4th amendment protections. No reason residents in apartments do not. Given the number of people who were citizens and were detained; no way they got a warrant for the entire structure and every single apartment within it. But again, I am willing to see. I haven't seen one. Without one, it is even more egregious behavior.

[Life of Brian]

While it's not my day job, I do read enough around here to feel fairly comfortable that just appealing to the text of the 4th Amendment isn't any more helpful than pointing to "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd. Nor do I harbor any illusions that overbreadth is so bright-line as to be determinable in a vacuum beyond the most caricatured situations.

In any event, my broader point was that inflammatory media articles aren't going to be a good way to parse what intersection of warranted activities and exigent circumstances may have gone down here. Agree seeing the scope of the warrant would be a good start, as would an actual list of apartments they forcibly entered.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looking around a little bit, I haven't been able to find even a purported justification for what they did. Maybe there is one, but I don't see it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Protective custody?

Just thinking here -- PC is protecting people for their own good, I do not favor it, but it exists.

[Life of Brian]

None whatsoever -- and most certainly not any direct quotes from DHS about what they were doing there.

But the good news about filtering out all that diversionary noise is that means we can have a supremely high level of assurance that the 37 illegal immigrant/130 apartment ratio is representative of the population as a whole rather than the byproduct of a targeted, focused operation. Some nationwide statistics will need to be sharply adjusted upwards, stat.

[Nelson]

“ we can have a supremely high level of assurance that the 37 illegal immigrant/130 apartment ratio is representative of the population as a whole rather than the byproduct of a targeted, focused operation.”

The ignorance in this statement is mindboggling in its scope. I really hope this was meant as sarcasm and I’m a victim of Poe’s Law.

[Life of Brian]

Certainly a closer call than I intended. I imagined the opening sentence alone would give it away (particularly in light of my first couple of posts in this thread), but loaded it up with ridiculous adverbs just in case.

[Nelson]

Oh, thank God. I figured it had to be sarcasm, but if you’ve ever read anything from Jesse or Mother’s Lament or other paleocons, it’s not as clear as one might hope.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"None whatsoever -- and most certainly not any direct quotes from DHS about what they were doing there."

Direct quotes from law enforcement about what are doing there don't amount to legal justification for a search.

"What are you doing in my house?"
"Looking for drugs."
"OK, carry on."

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a purported justification for the search. They refused to say if they had a warrant, and didn't raise any other defenses, like exigent circumstances.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a purported justification for the search. They refused to say if they had a warrant, and didn't raise any other defenses, like exigent circumstances.

In turn I may have missed where they refused to say if they had a warrant. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm not seeing "WITHOUT A WARRANT" plastered all over the mainline stories as I'd expect were that the case. And the articles I've seen that take on the warrant issue at all seem to carefully write around it in a way they wouldn't have to unless they actually know there were warrants in play but don't want to say so, like this one ("Organizers worry many people were taken without warrants.")

Similarly, I don't see anything supporting a full search of the building other than quotes from residents (and query how they would be in a position to know what happened in the building after they were detained). Many articles infer it due to the extent of damage, but that pretends the building wasn't already falling apart at the seams before the raid. One objective data point I found is the building inspection report from this February. It's a mile long and specifically cites broken/missing apartment doors and locks, broken windows, and water damage. So the pictures and stories that attribute all the damage to the raid can't be accurate, and thus it seems like we're back to square 1 on the extent to which anything actually improper happened.

[Nelson]

It’s ICE in the second Trump administration. Legal justifications aren’t necessary.

[Nelson]

[Bunny495]

As a Vietnam Era Veteran who has actually been involved in "military style raid(s)" I am calling bullshit on this. There is some history of "regular law enforcement" doing the same thing ICE did in this raid. As others have noted this place was known for gang activity and lots of criminal activity.

[windycityattorney]

Do regular law enforcement rappel from helicopters Bunny495 in the middle of a city? Do they zip tie little children who they pulled out of their beds?

F off with this whitewashing. It looked more like a military raid in Iraq or Afghanistan than 'regular law enforcement.'

[shawn_dude]

And when regular law enforcement uses SWAT tactics, they do so because there's some really bad stuff going on and they have a warrant for a specific address. Regular law enforcement *never* goes door to door and just sweeps an entire building because it's simpler or easier or funner.

[Moderation4ever]

I saw on the news last night President Trump talking about Portland burning which it doesn't seem to be doing. Is it time for JD Vance to step in and send the President off to a nice memory care facility?

[Frank Drackman]

Keep dreaming, Shit-bag, like Doc Holliday, "45/47/48?" has not yet begun to defile himself. (that's meant as a compliment)

Frank

[John F. Carr]

If Republicans were willing to stand up to Trump we wouldn't be in this situation hoping for Republicans to stand up to Trump.

[Bwaaah]

^THAT^

I remember 2016, when I realized that the Republican and Democratic parties aren't keepers of political philosophies. Each is no more than an aggregation of people who are opposed to the other for the purpose of winning elections. No principle will be advanced that could be construed as an endorsement of the other side.

Unintelligible political philosophies? Not even. They're just trash talking mobs that are as like-minded as a random selection of Yankees fans.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yankees fans? Not nearly random enough. More like a sample of the next 50 folks through the door at the Vince Lombardi rest stop.

That, by the way, has been for decades my model image for the American polity. Keep that in mind, and it's hard to get too far afield ideologically.

[Bwaaah]

That looks to me like a pretty good approximation you have there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If Republicans were willing to stand up to Trump"

GOP voters overwhelmingly support Trump and like most of what he is doing, including sending a small amount of NG to protect federal facilities and officers.

What are they supposed to "stand up to"?

[Moderation4ever]

Stand up for the facts that there is no real problem in Portland and that the President is not in touch with reality.

[Bwaaah]

There used to be a thing called a party "platform." The platform included philosophical objectives that tended to be enduring, such as minimizing meddlesome government intrusion in commerce.

With DJT's entry as the Republican party candidate, the Republican Party became the Party of DJT, and its platform became the ongoing sum of his stream of consciousness declarations.

"Trump" is the brand. "Republican" is the name of his crew. "Philosophy" is for faggots. "Drugs" make everything make sense.

[gVOR08]

I saw it reported elsewhere that Trump is reacting to a piece on FOX that carefully mixed in footage from the George Floyd protests five years ago, implying it was current. I happened to see a Tweet from DHS with some of that, very dramatic, obviously old. So Trump's problem isn't dementia, well not entirely dementia, but the far more common problem of actually believing FOX "News".

[Moderation4ever]

Let me suggest that part of the President's problem is that he can't actually read newspapers or reports and so he is left dependent on reporting from Fox or other visual/audio media. I am always amused by his quips "I read somewhere" and would like to see someone actually ask where he read something and what it said .

[Nelson]

A non-political topic, for a change.

I saw the Violent Femmes last night in Baltimore and last weekend I went to the Oceans Calling festival in Ocean City. Both were awesome, although the monsoon we suffered through last Saturday kinda sucked.

Anyone else out there gone to a good show or festival recently?

[Zarniwoop]

Nice change of pace from the usual suspects bloviating the same sad partisan vibes over and over, thanks!

In the last couple weeks I’ve seen:
Weird Al with Puddles Pity Party. Weird Al was hilarious as always, played stuff going back to the cassette tapes I had in the 80’s. Puddles was interestingly strange.
Brian Jonestown Massacre with Flavor Crystals. BJM is yer basic psychedelic shoegaze with a front man who is talented and creative, but … unpredictable and difficult at times. Missed most of Flavor Crystals, but their last song was pretty dang good.
Garbage with Starcrawler. Garbage is indie/alt rock; Starcrawler is LA rock/punk. Garbage was good but Starcrawler totally rocked out.

All in Madisonland, all excellent shows.

Up this weekend is Stereolab at the First Ave Club in MSP (anyone gonna be there?) for some avant-pop/drone electronic with a Krautrock influence. They always put on a great performance.

[Brett Bellmore]

A few years back we got to see Weird Al in an open air venue. It was fantastic, glad I could treat my son to that.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah the Wierd Al show in MSN was at a small(ish) outdoor stadium, and the weather was an absolutely perfect warm fall night. Took spawn #1 (19y.o.) and she loved it.

[Frank Drackman]

Was he better than Gallagher?
Thought I saw him once, but it was his brother, sort of like going to a Braves game to see Hank, and his brother Tommie plays instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never actually seen Gallagher on anything but a brief appearance on TV, and he seemed like something of a one trick pony.

Weird Al is both hilarious AND a highly skilled performer; The combination of parody and musical proficiency is amazing.

[apedad]

Biden-appointed judge slammed by conservatives for 'lenient' 8-year sentence in Kavanaugh assassination plot

Attorney General Pam Bondi said that Department of Justice plans to appeal the sentence

Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, sentenced Roske to eight years in prison Friday for attempting to assassinate Kavanaugh in June 2022 in the weeks before the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision.

The sentence is more lenient than what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had sought. Prosecutors said Roske should face at least 30 years, while Roske's defense team had asked for eight.

"@TheJusticeDept will be appealing the woefully insufficient sentence imposed by the district court, which does not reflect the horrific facts of this case."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-appointed-judge-slammed-conservatives-lenient-8-year-sentence-kavanaugh-assassination-plot?msockid=3d266fb79d526e810dec79ca9cc86f11

Can the govt appeal a sentence?

I don't think so according to this federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3731

[hobie]

"Either side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is imposed after a guilty verdict."

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the sentencing hearing ran for seven hours, the sentencing memorandum ran to 34 pages in recommending a 30 year sentence and the judge spoke for an hour on the defendant's claim to be a woman, referring to him as her, might there be grounds for an appeal?

[Michael P]

I think Brett called it the other day, saying something like that Roske entered a Bradley Manning plea.

[Mr. Bumble]

Or as someone else said, the twinkie defense.

[Sarcastr0]

Didn't DMN note that there was no evidence that was material to the sentencing decision?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Didn't DMN note that there was no evidence that was material"

He asserted, without evidence, that it was not the "primary" reason.

[Mr. Bumble]

"He asserted, without evidence [as usual], that it was not the "primary" reason."

Fixed it for you.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato burden switching.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What burden switching? You asked if DMN noted that there was no evidence that was material to the sentencing decision.

As you were told, the answer is no, DMN did not note any such thing.

[hobie]

If referring to a defendant as him or her is an established error in the law, then, yes, that would be grounds

[SRG2]

What is overlooked in all those hysterical right-wing cries is that in the ordinary definition of the word, there was no attempt at all. Only by legal definition was there an attempt - kind of like how in some states, DUI includes being "in control" of the car without actually driving it - it's merely a legal definition, not a common definition.

Because the cultists only see the word "attempt", they think that 8 years is too little.

[Frank Drackman]

Gonna be a shame when the guy falls on a Shank in Prison.

[Bob from Ohio]

Flew across county. Got a gun. Went to his house.

I say most normal people would consider that an attempt. Chickening out at the last moment does not change that.

But your brain is so fried from Trump hateyou are no longer normal.

[Nelson]

“ Flew across county. Got a gun. Went to his house.”

Do you apply the same standard to the violent J6 rioters who brought guns to DC?

[Bob from Ohio]

Whataboutism!

A handful out of thousand and no one took one into the building. Left in cars and hotel rooms.

He was armed because he intended to murder a justice

[SRG2]

If a J6-intentioned person had taken a gun in a car to the capitol and then decided to drive away, you'd be whining if he were charged with any kind of attempt.

[Brett Bellmore]

According to accounts I read at the time, it was widely expected that the left would show up in force at Trump's rally, and some people did bring, and park in VA, their guns, in case worst came to worst. You know, if the DC authorities drove counter-protesters and Trump supporters together in order to assure violence, as happened at Charlottesville? So that it would be self-help or a massacre?

That expectation is a good deal of why I didn't attend myself. I had no intention of risking winding up in the middle of a riot.

Happily, there was no attack on the crowd, so nobody had cause to go back and get those guns.

[Nelson]

“ it was widely expected that the left would show up in force at Trump's rally”

Only if you get your news exclusively from wingnuts and conspiracy theorists. No normal people thought that there would be any need to bring weapons to DC.

“ You know, if the DC authorities drove counter-protesters and Trump supporters together in order to assure violence, as happened at Charlottesville?”

What kind of bizarre conspiracy theory is this? The authorities in Charlottesville conspired to intentionally create a violent conflict? So I guess this is your way of trying to justify the murderous conservative who drove into a crowd trying to kill people?

“ Happily, there was no attack on the crowd, so nobody had cause to go back and get those guns.”

Sure, they just turned into a violent mob that smashed their way into the Capitol, assaulted law enforcement officers, and caused members of Congress to flee the chamber in fear. Yeah, J6 was such a happy day for America.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Only if you get your news exclusively from wingnuts and conspiracy theorists. "

It's really weird the way you expect to explain right-wing behavior on the basis of what left-wingers tell each other, rather than what right-wingers think.

"The authorities in Charlottesville conspired to intentionally create a violent conflict? "

Yes, in fact they did. They hadn't wanted to allow that protest, they'd been forced to issue the permit by a court decision. So they engineered a pretext for canceling it.

"Sure, they just turned into a violent mob that smashed their way into the Capitol,"

The attack on the Capitol was,

1. Preplanned by the Proud Boys.
2. Started while Trump was still speaking, so couldn't have been triggered by his speech.
3. If everybody in the crowd had done as you suggest, the Capitol building wouldn't have remained standing. Most people did nothing of the sort.

[Sarcastr0]

A new conspiracy to explain away right-wing bad behavior, and yet another example of a violent left that never materialized.

Brett's playing the hits this morning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"gun in a car"

He was standing on the street in front of Kav's house with a loaded gun, stop whatabouting.

[ducksalad]

In this case there was plenty of other evidence of a plan so I don't see any problem with the prosecution.

However, we're all good permissionless carry people here. Certainly it is, or ought to be, legal to stand on the street while carrying a loaded gun. Similarly, it is legal to use any public street even if your most hated enemy lives on it.

Would it be illegal to indulge a mere bit of yearning as you walked by? To think about it with pleasure, without actually intending to do it? Or maybe to weigh the pros and cons, and then decide not to do it, without telling anyone or writing anything down?

Suppose a year later you told someone about that night you walked with thoughts. If they rat you out, should it be arrestable?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Probably not, without the other evidence of a plan that you mention above.

[SRG2]

That's not whatabouting, and it's strange you suddenly don't know what that is, given how often you're guilty of it.

Standing on a street with a gun when your potential victim is in a well-protected house still falls short of an actual attempt. He wasn't even on the curtilage.

Certainly - for the literal meaning of "certainly" - what he actually did was less serious than what Rober Morris actually did - and he only got 6 months. Now that is some whataboutism:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-megachurch-founder-spend-6-months-jail-sexually-abusing-girl

Whose was the more serious actual conduct?

[Nelson]

I have been assured that religious people don’t do that. Nor do their churches try to hide or cover up the things they don’t do.

They’re religious people and organizations. By definition they can’t be evil. Or so I’ve been told.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Really? I keep hearing, ad-nauseum, that religious people are sinners.

[Nelson]

“ Whataboutism”

That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think.

You said: “ Flew across county. Got a gun. Went to his house.

I say most normal people would consider that an attempt. Chickening out at the last moment does not change that.”

So exactly what the J6 folks did. That isn’t whataboutism, where I ignore your point by referring to an unrelated issue.

I was specifically pointing out that what you said applies to people like Stuart Rhodes on J6. Your issue, addressed directly by me, is the exact opposite of whataboutism.

So again, do you agree that your definition applies to the J6ers who travelled to DC with guns? Even if they “chickened out in the end”?

[SRG2]

Nah. He chickened out, ergo no attempt.

Your devotion to Dear Leader and his acolytes is basically an auto-lobotomy.

[Michael P]

I am heartened that this terrible infraction has helped the Roske family accept their daughter for who she is.

Judge Boardman is severely deranged. Attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice is an "infraction" that is somehow offset by a defendant playing trans after conviction but before sentencing?

[John F. Carr]

The government can appeal an illegal sentence. A sentence well below the guideline for an act of terrorism might be illegal if not adequately explained. Consideration of an illegal factor by the judge could also lead to reversal.

I think this doesn't deserve to be a 30 year felony, considering the shooter backed out before discovery was inevitable. Congress and the Sentencing Commission disagree. They are the ones who get to set policy. Attempting to murder a judge over political differences calls for a decades-long sentence even if it's a first offense and the attempt didn't get especially close to succeeding.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Attempting to murder a judge over political differences..."

His lawyer made a similar comment:

His lawyer said “What makes this case unique is not that Ms. Roske tried to kill a political figure, it’s that she stopped and turned herself in.”

Boardman interjected: “Judges are not political!”

[CommentMonkey]

I find it very difficult to follow the coverage of this plea. The Fox News article cited points out that the government wanted 30 years and the defense wanted 8, then has a bunch of filler quotes from random people online who are angry about the sentence. The other coverage I've seen isn't much better.

Seems to me at the very least it would be important to know what the sentencing range is for these crimes. For example, is 30 the max? Does the government get to 30 by stacking sentences vs. running them concurrently? Is 8 years the minimum?

That the defendant apparently turned himself and thus never followed through with the attempt seems like an important mitigating factor. Even so, I'd be open to the idea that 8 years is too short if the sentence deviates in some dramatic way from other similar cases (if there are any) or the guidelines' range. But I don't get how people can rant and rave about the sentence being too short based solely on the fact that the government wanted a longer sentence.

As for the sex change issue, that strikes me as completely irrelevant. Not sure why the judge would discuss that in handing down the sentence. Probably not enough to invalidate the sentence on appeal but it strikes me as unprofessional and inappropriate for the judge to pontificate on that topic.

[Bunny495]

"is 30 the max? Does the government get to 30 by stacking sentences vs. running them concurrently? Is 8 years the minimum?"

There was only one charge " attempted assassination of a Justice of the United States" so no stacking. Max is life in prison and 30 years is at the low end of the range recommended by sentencing guidelines. There is no statutory minimum.

Bottom line is the judge is blowing it out her ass.

[Mr. Bumble]

The judge identifies as a tranny, too?

[Nelson]

“ Can the govt appeal a sentence?”

I don’t think they can. If you look at something like the Brock Turner case, which was far more egregious as a miscarriage of justice, nothing could be done. I don’t see how this could be any different.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t think"

Correct. You are comparing a state case to a US case for starters.

Sentences that deviate from the guidelines are regularly appealed by the DOJ.

[Nelson]

Interesting. How often do they get changed? What is the requirement for changing a sentence?

[Voize of Reazon]

I don't think so according to this federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3731

That section concerns government appeals of judgments or orders. Section 3742(b) is what governs appeals of sentences.

[hobie]

Next Dem president has a lot of neat new powers to employ. Blacklisting MAGA law firms, bankrupting and suing MAGA universities and religious schools, pouring federal troops into states that practice bigotry towards gay people. In fact, gay and woman justice should be our semitism. Has your institution or movement (Turning Point) been bigoted towards gay people?

I can see why all this extrajudicial lawfare stuff excites you MAGA. Just thinking about plying it makes me happy also.

[Commenter_XY]

Win elections first. 😉

[hobie]

And we'll have no gnashing of teeth from you either, XY, when we get all these firms to bow to tranny power. Because you will remember it was all well and good before.

[Martinned]

Make sure that there will *be* elections first.

[Nelson]

Just stop. I am as vocal as critic of Trump and the paleocons as there is, but there is no way the elections will fail to occur on schedule. Sure, the MAGA folks will do everything they can to limit voters, but they aren’t going to cancel elections.

Nor, for that matter, is Trump going to run for a third term. The GOP would cease to be a viable political party if they nominated him.

[Martinned]

Sorry, that was shorthand for "make sure that there will be *free and fair* elections". Russia has elections too, but that doesn't mean they're free and fair. Given the ever increasing Trumpist take-over of the media, and their constant attempts at taking over the administration of elections, it is not a given that future elections will be free and fair.

[Nelson]

Yes, it is. The willing idiocy of MAGA and the delusional attacks on election security didn’t even leave a dent in our election security and fraud rates. Even with a man as corrupt as Trump dictating a strategy to subvert the election, there are more Brad Raffensburgers than Rudy Guilianis in America.

We will have free and fair elections at the midterms and in 2028. And Trump won’t be on the ballot.

[loki13]

I lack your confidence.

That was my view before the summer. In fact, that was something I kept reiterating to my SO- don't worry, let's just see how the midterms go.

I'm not going to detail all the things ... but there have been enough ... things that I have changed my opinion. I no longer have that confidence. Enough red lines have already been crossed that I do not have confidence that we will have regular mid-terms (define "regular" however you wish) a year from now.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course you mean that Republicans might win enough elections to keep their hold on Congress (both houses) .

[Life of Brian]

Dude. You've officially and decisively cast aside any pretense of being the Last Reasonable Man and are now going full-on conspiracy cuckoo.

This may be all the proof we need that TDS is a degenerative disease.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Next Dem president ..."
But will you still be around to see it?

[Michael P]

They are willing to create the next Jefferson Davis if that's what it takes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jefferson Davis was a better man than Gavin Newsom.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez was a better man than Gavin New-Scum. (Has Gavin let him out yet?)

Frank

[SRG2]

What a vile POS you are.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel better?

[SRG2]

I feel fine. You think a pro-slavery traitor responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans is a better man than some unremarkable governor. You're the disordered one.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! Robert KKK Bird's been dead for 20 years!

[SRG2]

Ah yes, because Robert Byrd was a Democray and ex-member of the4 KKK, there are no racist Republicans nor does the KKK support either the GOP or Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

POS? Yes I am a Person of Southpaw-ness, but don't lump me in with the really Vile ones like Bill Clinton and Barry Hussein Osama.

[Nelson]

“ Jefferson Davis was a better man than Gavin Newsom.”

The fact that anyone in America still believes that the Confederacy was anything except a traitorous armed rebellion against the United States in defense of evil blow my mind.

Just knowing that the Confederates got half a million Americans killed to defend slavery should be enough to make any reasonable person say, “wow, those people were evil”, not hold them up as a better person than a governor who hasn’t done anything except be outspokenly liberal.

Look, Gavin Newsome would be an awful President, but Jefferson Davis was evil.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gavin Newsome would be an awful President, but Jefferson Davis was evil."

Two people can be evil. Can't imagine Newsome doing this though:

"Davis distinguished himself at the Battle of Monterrey in September by leading a charge that took the fort of La Teneria.[75] He then went on a two-month leave and returned to Mississippi, where he learned that Joseph had submitted Davis's resignation from the House of Representatives in October.[76] Davis returned to Mexico and fought in the Battle of Buena Vista on February 22, 1847. He was wounded in the heel during the fighting,[77] but his actions stopped an attack by the Mexican forces that threatened to collapse the American line.[78]

[SRG2]

There were Nazis who performed heroically. So what? There are many contingent virtues.

Newsom isn't a pro-slavery traitor with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans on his hands.

[Nelson]

“ Can't imagine Newsome doing this though:”

I can’t imagine Newsome getting half a million people killed to keep slavery. What’s your point?

There is very little in this world that can truly be described as evil. The Holocaust wins, hands down, but the Confederacy takes the North American title. Nothing else even comes close.

[jb]

LOL. You'll notice the folks talking about civil war are consistently the MAGAs.

[DDHarriman]

Which side is out there shooting at and ramming federal agents with state/local government support?

[hobie]

Which side is ramming federal agents into American cities?

[Nelson]

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between individuals engaging in violence and a civil war.

Or, more likely, you do understand but you aren’t an honest or serious person so you post MAGA hyperbole like this.

[ThePublius]

There is noting hyperbolic about that, it actually, literally happened!

[Nelson]

Yes, individuals broke the law. That happens every day. It doesn’t have anything to do with a civil war.

[Michael P]

It takes a very talented individual to drive 10 cars in coordination to box in federal agents.

[jb]

Even reading everything as favorably as possible to ICE's view of the situation, they said there were 10 cars following them around and then 3 tried to box them in.

Regardless, it seems like a wild stretch from "10 people tried to box in a car to prevent ICE from doing their job" to "civil war". Was the civil rights movement a civil war, because that was vastly more coordinated than anything we're talking about here.

[DDHarriman]

What do you think is closer to civil war-like conduct?

Saying 'civil war' online, OR getting 10+ of your buds and going out there and attacking federal agents with local police support?

[Nelson]

Neither is anything like civil war.

[jb]

As Nelson notes, neither are much like the civil war, but I think it's pretty obvious that the people saying "I want to have a civil war" are the ones actually interested in having a civil war.

[Michael P]

It's funny how quickly they move their goalposts when someone points out that there are in fact organized violent groups on the left who are engaged in insurrection against the federal government, not just "individuals engaging in violence".

In contrast, the Civil Rights movement was organized by people who understood how important it is to be peaceful, even when being arrested as a result of civil disobedience.

[Nelson]

“ It's funny how quickly they move their goalposts when someone points out that there are in fact organized violent groups on the left who are engaged in insurrection against the federal government, not just "individuals engaging in violence".”

You misspelled “the right” and “January 6th”.

No one is moving any goalposts, you are just trying to claim a civil war out of random political violence. If your beliefs were true, the Second Civil War would have occurred in the 60s, when there was much more (and much more organized) political violence.

[Life of Brian]

You misspelled “the right” and “January 6th”.

Setting aside the... erm, flexible definition of "insurrection" needed to make that rejoinder even seem to work, it's pretty telling that the only whatabout drum that gets beaten over and over and over again in these discussions is identified by a single date on the calendar.

[DDHarriman]

IOW, continue the traditions of Obama and Biden.

Make sense. That's what's causing your ilk to reap the whirlwind today.

[Frank Drackman]

Zoran Ramadan-damn-he,
NOT a Jew,
but guess who is?
Baseball Hall of Famer Rod Carew (he converted)

Frank

[SRG2]

Rumours of a Trump $1 coin have spread.,,

It is entirely consistent that Trump would want one, and for the regime to decide it's a good idea, but apparently it's not true - at least, not so far.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-white-house-did-112823820.html

(I am 99.9% sure that it it were true, the cultists here would approve, the law regardless.)

[Frank Drackman]

With Inflation 1$ is quickly becoming like the penny, a $10 coin would actually be useful.

[ThePublius]

That's an excellent idea: $5 and $10 coins, maybe even $20's. And then, start printing $500 and $1000 bills again.

[OpinionsVary]

More higher value coins is legit a good idea, same with Trump's plan to kill the penny. They simply cost too much to produce and are worth less than the fractional cent coins when they were killed. I guess this is one of those things only a Republican (and possibly only Trump) can do. Can you imagine the rightwing outrage if Obama tried to 'steal' the penny?

Dollar bills are another problem. They really should be replaced with the far more economical $1 coins but they're 'iconic' and people don't want to switch.

[Mr. Bumble]

The dollar coin already exists and hardly anyone uses them.
If fact, supposedly, hardly anyone uses currency.

[OpinionsVary]

As I said, people don't want to switch. So people ignore the coins and cling to the bills.

And, yes, it's possible the US may go all digital before it ever manages to get rid of dollar bills.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which would you rather have in your pocket; 10 dollar coins, 10 singles or one $10 bill?

[OpinionsVary]

If we assume a blank slate world with nothing like vending machine lock-in, I'd like $1 coins up to about $10-ish total change range. Maybe some $2 dollar coins too, to reduce the load. Above $10, I'd want notes in regular increments. We can get rid of the $1 bill entirely. It's a coin now. I think that balances portability with creation cost quite well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Canadians got rid of their $1 bill in the late '80s.

[Nelson]

Coins suck. No one wants coins, period. They certainly don’t want more coins.

Donald Trump is a terrible President and a terrible human being. But getting rid of the penny is something I can get behind.

[ducksalad]

Bills all the way down. Either round totals to the nearest dollar, or perforate the $1 and legalize tearing it into fractions for those that insist on more granularity.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like cutting the Spanish Real into bits?

[ducksalad]

Yes! Except without the inconvenience of having to carry a cutlass to cleave off pieces.

[Nelson]

But if I have to leave my cutlass at home, it’ll ruin my whole look.

[Martinned]

Pity. Think of how much fun Americans could have superglueing those coins to urinals.

[Frank Drackman]

FUCK your faggot king,
in his Donkey Asshole, is perfect Asshole for Donkey

[Bunny495]

Truth be told I carry a couple of quatres in one of the drink holders in my car to use when I need a shopping cart at Aldis. Otherwise I can't remember the last time I used any coins in America. In Mexico I carry them to buy toilet paper when I use a public restroom.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you don't use currency, only plastic?

[Bunny495]

"So you don't use currency, only plastic?"

Just got an email that my CC limit was a cool 30k, up from 27k. I do buy a lot on Amazon which probably explains why my limit skyrockets. I do use hundred dollar bills when I am on the boat especially in foreign countries. In many places that is the only option. In places like Cuba (and some other countries) a credit card is useless.

[Dr. Ed 2]

$2,000 to kidnap ICE people, $10,000 to kill one.

At what point *is* it RICO?

[Zarniwoop]

You should review the canonical Popehat article, grampa: Lawsplainer: IT’S NOT RICO, DAMMIT!

“But it's an important case! And the facts are terrible! This defendant did really bad things.

That's not what RICO means. RICO is not a fucking frown emoji. It's not an exclamation point. It's not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something. It's not a petulant foot-stomp.

RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.”

[gVOR08]

In practice RICO looks to be like trying juveniles as adults, driven by prosecutors' political considerations.

[Michael P]

In this particular case, it's drug cartels or similar groups issuing bounties for US federal enforcement agents. It's probably actually RICO this time.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/05/us-news/cartels-target-federal-immigration-agents-with-10k-bounties-kristi-noem-reveals-dangerous-and-unprecedented/

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for actual info, you’re doing a lot better than Grampa Ed.

I do agreed that despite Popehat’s general stance, if those facts are verifiable then there actually is a chance RICO could apply.

Ken White does note that “And even though it was passed to deal with large-scale organized crime, now it's vastly overused — not so much by the government, but definitely by plaintiff attorneys.” as an explanation for some of the humorous vitriol.

I won’t hold my breath though. Plenty of examples of claims from Trump on down (and including ICE Barbie) that somehow never get made in court and under oath.

[Zarniwoop]

e.g., he’s talking about cases like Laura Loomer trying to sue Xitter and Meta using RICO when me mentions “idiot plaintiff lawyers”:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5540495-loomers-racketeering-lawsuit-rejected/

“The judge also ruled that Loomer’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim failed, holding that her allegations amounted to lawful business conduct. In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, focusing primarily on Loomer’s failure to plead a RICO enterprise.

[not guilty]

"In this particular case, it's drug cartels or similar groups issuing bounties for US federal enforcement agents. It's probably actually RICO this time."

That is certainly a possibility, although parsing the definition of "racketeering activity" at 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) does not leave the matter free of doubt.

If the threats are issued within the territorial jurisdiction of a state, the solicitation to commit kidnapping or murder likely falls within the ambit of § 1961(1)(A): "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year."

If the threats emanate from outside the United States, § 1961(1)(A) may not apply. (Although it is conceivable that the transmission from outside the U.S. to a person operating within a state of a solicitation to kill or kidnap may be a felony under that state's law.)

I haven't parsed every federal statute cited in § 1961(1)(B), but I note that violations of federal statutes as murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 are not listed in that definition as racketeering activity. That is a curious omission.

Of course a RICO prosecution requires more that the commission of multiple predicate acts in the specified time frame.

[Bored Lawyer]

"RICO is not a fucking frown emoji."

Great line. I hope to use it one day.

[Zarniwoop]

It’s a pretty fun and quite quick read. Good for a chuckle or three. Def recommend reading it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was a genuine QUESTION -- at what point would it be RICO?

What would be necessary for it to be RICO?

[John F. Carr]

Murder for hire is already a federal crime if electronic communications are used. Murder for hire is also a predicate act for criminal RICO if it is done in an organized manner and not as an individual. 18 USC 1962(c). Maybe the government could get a RICO conviction, but only because it can also get a federal felony conviction with less effort.

[DDHarriman]

Well since ANTIFA doesn't exist, those ANTIFA bounties can't exist either.

Tada! I'm now a doctrinaire Democrat!

[Martinned]

You will note that Ed's comment didn't actually include a link to any evidence that this is a thing he/she didn't just make up.

[Frank Drackman]

FUCK your faggot King.
In his Donkey Asshole.

[hobie]

Sounds more like the Texas bounty system for pregnant women

[SRG2]

Some actual evidence, not merely a claim by Gestapo Barbie, would be nice. Not really credible, if one think about it for a moment

[not guilty]

"At what point *is* it RICO?"

If and when all essential elements of activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1962 are satisfied. The gravamen of that statute is property crimes. Specifically, the statute provides:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

The elements under subsection (a) are:

(1) a person
(2) who has received any income
(3) derived:

(i) from a pattern of racketeering activity or
(ii) through collection of an unlawful debt

(4) in which such person has participated as a principal
(5) to use or invest:

(i) any part of such income or
(ii) the proceeds of such income

(6) to acquire an interest in or establish the operation of
(7) an enterprise
(8) which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

The elements under subsection (b) are:

(1) a person who:

(i) through a pattern of racketeering activity or
(ii) through collection of an unlawful debt
(2) acquires or maintains:

(i) any interest in or
(ii) control of
(3) any enterprise
(4) which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

The elements under subsection (c) are:

(1) a person:

(i) employed by or
(ii) associated with

(2) an enterprise
(3) engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce
(4) conducting or participating in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs:

(i) through a pattern of racketeering activity or
(ii) collection of unlawful debt.

Subsection (d) prohibits conspiring to violate subsections (a), (b), or (c), Such a conspiracy requires two or more persons agree to violate subsections (a), (b), or (c), with the intent that such crime actually be carried out. No overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy appears to be necessary.

Any questions?

[Mr. Bumble]

President Trump's favorite pen now made in the USA.
https://www.wsj.com/business/sharpie-us-production-cost-cutting-d9ba2abd
And because the link is pay-walled:
" Tucked in the foothills of Tennessee’s Smoky Mountains is a factory that has figured out a way to manufacture in America that’s cheaper, quicker and better.

It’s the home of a famous American writing implement: the Sharpie marker.

Pen barrels whirl along automated assembly lines that rapidly fill them with ink. At least half a billion Sharpie markers are churned out here every year, each one made of six parts. Only the felt tip is imported, from Japan.

It didn’t used to be this way. Back in 2018, many Sharpies were made abroad. That’s when Chris Peterson, who was the CFO of Sharpie maker Newell Brands NWL 3.55%increase; green up pointing triangle, challenged his team to answer a question: How could they keep Newell from becoming obsolete compared with factories in Asia?

“I felt like we had an opportunity to dramatically improve our U.S. manufacturing,” he said.

Peterson is now the CEO. And these days, most Sharpies—in all 93 colors—are made at this 37-year-old factory. Newell did it without reducing the employee count, and without raising prices. But to get to this place took close to $2 billion in investments across the company, thousands of hours of training and a total overhaul of the production process.

The result is a playbook for making low-cost, high-volume products domestically, albeit one that requires long-term planning and a lot of investment. "

As posted on Instapundit.

[Mr. Bumble]

For your viewing pleasure:
https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1974951359310119286?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1974951359310119286%7Ctwgr%5E5fd61b3eae40044868a15992e9bb4a0cac223c12%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Falthouse.blogspot.com%2F

[DDHarriman]

That 'We are all Sombreros' down in the replies is pretty funny too.

[hobie]

That's pretty good. Politicians dressed up in racist Mexican tropes. So one could create a cartoon of MAGA elites in payot, yarmulkes and big noses dancing around to hava nagila? Absolutely the same principle, wouldn't you say? You know, this MAGA-think is kinda fun.

[Mr. Bumble]

Have at it.

[hobie]

It would equally hilarious, don't you think?

[Frank Drackman]

not quite up there with Georgia Knee-Grow Congressman Hank Johnson asking the Navy Admiral if Guam was in danger of capsizing.

[hobie]

Did you notice how I used the plural 'payot' as opposed to the singular 'peyot', Frankie? Of course you did.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The new SCOTUS term is here. The live audio, for the first time (to my knowledge), included swearing in new lawyers. They usually skip to the oral arguments. I don't know if this is a precedent or something. I listened to it on C-SPAN's website, though the live audio button is now available on the SCOTUS website.

My sympathies to fans of NY baseball and football.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"It is more consonant to the true philosophy of our historical legal institutions to say that the spirit of personal liberty and individual right which they embodied was preserved and developed by a progressive growth and wise adaptation to new circumstances and situations of the forms and processes found fit to give, from time to time, new expression and greater effect to modern ideas of self-government."

Quoted by Justice George Sutherland in Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371 (1933).

==

"Regulations the wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution of course must fall."

Justice George Sutherland, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

(Comparably, equal protection remains the same -- some treatment of like as like -- but "new and different conditions," including new knowledge, social practices, and laws, provide a different "scope of application" that would be rejected out of hand in the past.)

[Armchair]

"The events that unfolded over the weekend in Chicago were described by law enforcement as harrowing.

U.S. Border Patrol agents were reportedly conducting a patrol of the city’s South Side when they were set upon and “attacked” by an organized convoy of ten vehicles that “boxed in” the CBP detachment. “The officers exited their trapped vehicle, when a suspect tried to run them over, forcing the officers to fire defensively,” a Department of Homeland Security statement read. During that confrontation, one agent shot an armed woman already known to law enforcement “for doxing” and posting threats against immigration-enforcement agents. She escaped and drove herself to a hospital, where she was later arrested along with another attacker at a separate location.

That sequence of events is backed up by independent reporting, which cites prosecutors’ accounts and video evidence of the aftermath of the ramming attack captured by witnesses."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/10/democrats-simply-refuse-to-reckon-with-leftist-political-violence/

This is truly disturbing. This is organized violence...10 different vehicles...that box in, trap, then try to kill the law enforcement officers of the United States. This is, in many ways, terrorism.

[Sarcastr0]

That sequence of events is backed up by independent reporting, which cites prosecutors’ accounts and video evidence of the aftermath.

Wow this is weak from NRO.

Guess who told the prosecutors what happened? That's not independent!
And video of the aftermath is not going to be strong corroboration of what happened in the duringmath. Best it can do is say what's consistent.

Chicago law enforcement is disputing. The woman driving herself to the hospital is disputed.

I know you're eager to declare an organized violent conspiracy now, but if you waited until Friday, you can cite something more substantive more than this push story.

[DDHarriman]

Why do you think the video shows one black SUV ramming an ICE vehicle with lights on and then a similar black SUV chasing after the both of them?

[Armchair]

Next Sarcastr0 will be saying the Holocaust didn't happen, because we didn't have the Nazi's side of the story.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say it didn't happen, I said wait for stuff to be established rather than just following whatever claim makes you happy.

I said the same above about that liberal judge's house blowing up.

It's nonpartisan, anodyne advice.

Weird swerve to bring up Holocaust denial, but you do you.

[Don Nico]

Wow, obviously Gaslight0 did not watch the video, but he disputes what happened. The woman clearly rammed the ICE vehicle. The Chicago cops deny the story, because they were told by the dispatcher to "stand down. Nonetheless, Gaslight0 supports the dishonest Chicago mayors office because it fits his bubble mindset.
'

[Nelson]

Like January 6th, but with a lot fewer people.

[Don Nico]

Off point, Nelson. Did you watch the video? Did you listen to the time-stamped recording of the dispatcher?

[Nelson]

The point is 10 people doing something violent is apparently awful, but a few thousand is just fine.

I have no empathy for the masked, anonymous, warrent-free secret police of ICE, but I don’t think they should be attacked. At all. There is no justification. That’s a reasonable position.

I condemned the murderous sniper that shot up an ICE facility in Texas, I condemn this attack on ICE, and I condemned the violent mob that smashed their way into the Capitol on January 6th. That is a consistent opposition to political violence.

Anyone who doesn’t condemn J6 (or pretends it wasn’t a violent attack on the Capitol and the law enforcement agents who defended it), but wants to make hay out of this is a hypocrite.

Pure, uncut, premium-grade hypocrisy. MAGA’s drug of choice.

[Michael P]

I note you can't bring yourself to concern the burning, looting and murder that took place just six months before J6.

If you want to direct how the executive branch does their jobs, get elected President. Otherwise, blame your violent protest buddies and their denialist fans in the comments here that federal agents have to fear for their lives and their families' lives just for showing up to work.

[Sarcastr0]

An open election doesn't mean no one gets to object to fascism.

The right, with no change of the facts on the ground, is eagerly insisting that there's a vast nationwide violent liberal conspiracy.

It's not hard to see where you all want to go.

[Nelson]

“ federal agents have to fear for their lives and their families' lives just for showing up to work.”

They don’t. They never have. They never will. No one is going around assassinating ICE agents or their families. It’s just another paranoid delusion of the hard right lunatic fringe.

A conservative assassin killed politicians in Minnesota. That is a real thing that actually happened, unlike your “federal agents live under constant threat to their families” bullshit.

But you don’t see politicians hiding their identities, do you? Because they aren’t gutless authoritarian thugs who know they are doing bad things, like ICE agents.

[Life of Brian]

No one is going around assassinating ICE agents or their families.

At least right now, when it's at least halfway difficult to identify them and publish their home addresses to the mob. Many (perhaps even you, given your final paragraph) are pushing to change that.

[Frank Drackman]

"ICE are Nazis!!!!" "Chicago is Safe!!"
Kill-More Garcia's is a "Maryland Man!!"
Meet the "Dudes in Girls Sports" Ish-Yew of 2026
and it's Evil Twin "Cocks in (Girls) Lock(er Rooms)"
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

[Bob from Ohio]

One of the Conspirators just gutted Steve Vladeck on twitter

Jonathan H. Adler@jadler1969
2h
"Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law School, cautioned against reading too much into the Supreme Court’s preliminary orders." Someone should tell the author of the One First newsletter."

For those who do not know, Vladeck writes One First

https://x.com/jadler1969/status/1975204308699464090

[loki13]

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-are-not-fascists-and-if-you-call-us-fascists-we-will-arrest-you

Pretty much sums it up.

I saw an interesting video (Veritasium, fyi) that had a good explainer about the mathematics behind the "six degrees of separation," "shortcuts," and some interesting bits about game theory and the natural evolution of hubs as network complexity grows.

For people that like to educate themselves, I strongly recommend it, although whether you find it incredibly depressing, or just kinda mostly depressing (due to the very last bit which allows for some small spark of maybe sorta optimism...) is up to you.

[DDHarriman]

Who got throw in jail for calling Trump or conservatives a fascist?

Has that happened to anyone?

[Bwaaah]

"Has that happened to anyone?"

Not that I'm aware of. Hyperbole makes anything possible.

[DDHarriman]

This is what's so weird. Loki seems to genuinely believe that if he uttered the word 'fascist' and directed it at a conservative he'd be thrown in prison.

Do you think he's a Downsie?

[loki13]

...I'm guessing that there just isn't an overlap between McSweeney's and VC. Or, for that matter, Veritasium and VC.

Explains a lot, really.

Honestly, at this point there really isn't much of an overlap between "people who can read a court opinion" and the VC, so there's that, too.

[Life of Brian]

"Loki, you weary Me."

Oh, well -- it was worth a try.

[DDHarriman]

If only we were as cultured and well-read as Loki here, then we too would believe that people are literally being arrested for calling Trump a fascist.

That's obviously the hot take the intelligentsia have, so we should too!

Ignore your eyes see, your nose smells, ears hear, and what your conscience says folks and you too can be a Democrat.

[Martinned]

Conveniently there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to answering that question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_Trump_administration

[Estragon]

The man is not well:

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/10/trump-blasts-judge-who-blocked-troop-deployment-saying-she-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-himself.html

[Estragon]

“Portland is burning to the ground”

Did you know you can follow Portland Fire and Rescue on social media?

https://x.com/PDXFire

Live cams of downtown. Note the multiple fires.

https://katu.com/weather/cameras

https://www.thesquarepdx.org/see-the-square-live/

[loki13]

Look, Estragon. You can tell people what is actually happening because you live there.

You can direct them to actual live webcams that they can verify for themselves what is happening.

You can provide them with links to source documents so that they can read the facts about what is happening.

But the simple fact of the matter is- they don't want to know. They don't care. Because it's not about the facts, it's about the feels. And facts don't contradict feels. And it's impossible to get a person to understand something when that person's self-identity depends on them not understanding that thing.

[Estragon]

Oh believe me, I’m aware. But there might be reality-tethered persuadables lurking. I do it for them, not the dead-enders.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm enjoying it just from an owning the tools level. They may be too toolish to care, but I appreciate the show.

[hobie]

Multiple food trucks in the 'square'. Likely one selling tacos. What more reason do we need?

[Frank Drackman]

Surpremes only have 16 argument days scheduled for the rest of the year. MLB Starting Pitchers work more. (OK, and get paid much more)

[DDHarriman]

Why has health insurance premiums risen so dramatically since ACA?

Is it from failed ideology/belief system or was it done on purpose to cause suffering so people will come clamoring to the government for relief?

[Nelson]

They haven’t. If you want to see for yoyrself:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/health-care-inflation-in-the-united-states/

[DDHarriman]

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

How does this not describe what we are seeing by these Democrat/ANTIFA activists?

[M L]

The dollar has dropped to an all time low of 0.0000080 BTC.

[DDHarriman]

I wake up every morning and thank my lucky stars for my old bitcoin stash. It almost feels like winning the lottery.

[M L]

Lucky you. No big old stash here. I did put another chunk in at around 77k 6 months ago.

[DDHarriman]

Well, it's not big. Just feels like free money.

[Martinned]

If you didn't make that up, it's *exactly* like winning the lottery. Make sure you don't hang on to them too long!

[Poxigah146]

Bitcoin is a great example of what happens when people don't trust the world's central banks to protect the value of their currency. They flock to assets of any type, no matter how stupid.

If you read "When money dies" you'll see parallels to Weimar Germany. The only difference is it's not limited to one country now. We're experiencing a global crack-up boom.

[M L]

If bitcoin is still around in 20 or 30 years, or the price goes up to a million, will you still say that it's stupid? Just wondering, and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

What's your strategy if you believe we're heading into Weimar and a global crack-up boom? Real estate and gold?

[Poxigah146]

If Bitcoin is still around in 20 to 30 years, it'll be because the world financial system has collapsed, and then nothing will have any value.

But yes, I've been stacking gold.

[DDHarriman]

I was perusing our local mall when I noticed a Mexican Book Store. I was wondering what exactly was in a Mexican Book Store so I went in. As I was wondering around taking a look, the clerk stopped me and asked if he could help me. I imagine that I didn't look like his normal clientele, so I asked, "Do u have a copy of President Trumps book on his U.S. Immigration Policy regarding Illegal Immigration?". The clerk said "GET OUT, GET OUT NOW, AND STAY OUT!". I said "Yes, that's the one! Do you happen to have that in paperback?".

/tips fedora
/thanks for the gold kind stranger
h/t anon

[Poxigah146]

I'll take "Things that never happened" for $1,000, Alex.

[DDHarriman]

All the slashes after the joke didn't clue you in?

[hobie]

That's pretty funny. Since it appears it is okay to make fun of minorities without consequence, let me give it a try:

I was perusing our local mall when I noticed a Jewish Book Store. I was wondering what exactly was in a Jewish Book Store so I went in. As I was wondering around taking a look, the clerk stopped me and asked if he could help me. I imagine that I didn't look like his normal clientele, so I asked, "Do u have a copy of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf book on his German Immigration Policy regarding Illegal Jewish Existence in the Fatherland?". The clerk said "GET OUT, GET OUT NOW, AND STAY IN THE GAS CHAMBER!". I said "Yes, that's the one! Do you happen to have that in paperback?".

[DDHarriman]

lol that's funny as shit, do you mind if I share that with my Bible study group?

[hobie]

Absolutely! Bible enthusiasts are the biggest cheerleaders of Jew eradication in the End of Times. They'll love it.

[DDHarriman]

It's a mutual feeling, too! Between the Jews and the Christians, that is. Throw in the Mohammedans and you got yourself an amazing threesome!

[hobie]

I'm not sure the Jews advocate for the eradication of Christians

[Poxigah146]

If by "eradication" you mean "murder," then no. If you mean to dilute their power and influence and demoralize them, then yes, they absolutely do.

[DDHarriman]

This is what disenfranchisement and coup d'état looks like in our 5th generation warfare era.

https://x.com/SenatorBanks/status/1975242153942020548

The 2020 Census was a fraud. The Biden admin used a shady “privacy” formula that scrambled the data and miscounted 14 states. It included illegal immigrants and handed Democrats extra seats. Americans deserve a fair count and I’m fighting to fix it.

How many lives were lost, businesses shattered, kids transed, and families broken up because the Democrats stole the House from the good guys?

[hobie]

Well, I'll be. This hayseed got something right!

Asking Gemini AI: "Did differential privacy skew the 2020 census?"

Yes, differential privacy did introduce some discrepancies into the 2020 Census data, particularly for smaller geographical areas and certain demographic groups, though the goal was to protect privacy. While state-level population counts remained accurate, the injected statistical noise, or "noise," led to variance at the census block and congressional district levels. Some studies suggest this could result in biases for certain populations, such as non-white and rural communities, and may have provided insufficient confidentiality protection.

[hobie]

Seeing myself type 'Well, I'll be' reminds me of this little ditty of how North Texans - the seediest of hayseeds - talk. Just say this out loud and you'll sound like a hayseed:

Hayseed1 : M R ducks.
Hayseed2 : M R not ducks.
O S A R! C M Whangs?
Lyle be! M R ducks!

[Estragon]

Might be interesting to hear from the folks who were aggressively wrong about this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/netanyahu-drone-attacks-gaza-aid-boats-tunisia/

[Mr. Bumble]

What an empty life.

[Estragon]

Yeah, that’s about what I expected out of you.

[Estragon]

“Fake news, is there anything it can't do?”

LOL.

[Life of Brian]

I didn't take a position on this one, but I'm not sure why anyone that did would be particularly chagrined by what appears to be just another "anonymous sources say other anonymous sources said" piece.

[Michael P]

Is the point that Antifa is violating "international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict" in Portland? How does it feel to have been so aggressively wrong about them?

[Estragon]

“Is the point”

Uh, no.

“How does it feel to have been so aggressively wrong”

Was I?

[Frank Drackman]

AOC is saying Stephen Miller is angry because "He's 4'10"
Looked it up, he's 5'10".
I would think AOC would know how long 12 inches is.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

lol underrated, underappreciated comment.

I think if you had added a cheesey emoji wink you would've punched that up quite well since the implications are pretty funny.

[Michael P]

Why was the Autopen administration running pen registers on the cell phone usage of right Republican Senators and one Republican Representative? That's a classic Stasi kind of surveillance.

[DDHarriman]

Well, you see Michael P, Democrats have pure and golden hearts so whatever they did, it was for good reasons , therefore, by power of the General Welfare clause, their actions are always lawful, on the right side of history, and save democracy.

Republicans, on the other hand, have black hearts, therefore they govern with improper animus making their technically lawful actions very unconstitutional.

[Martinned]

Was it?

[Martinned]

I recently mentioned the gag order that Twitter was seeking against a guy called Danny Mekic. At the time I only had some press reporting based on the oral hearing. Today the Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has given judgment:

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:2667

The procedural posture is that Mekic filed a subject access request (SAR) with Twitter under GDPR to receive the data it held about him. His objective was to find out why he was shadowbanned.

Twitter refused, but Mekic won in the District Court on 4 July last year.

On 11 December the Court of Appeals will hear the appeal, but before that Twitter raised a procedural question, on which the court has now given judgment. Twitter asked the court to order Mekic not to speak publicly about Twitter, so that he wouldn't use the data he received (based on the District Court's judgment) to reveal commercially sensitive information about how Twitter's Guano Notes system for assigning reputation scores works.

Art. 28 of the Civil Procedure Code does provide a legal basis for such an order. That is the same provision that allows for court proceedings to take place behind closed doors in certain circumstances, something that is also possible in the US.

Mekic argued that there was a less burdensome alternative that would also address Twitter's legitimate (!) concerns, i.e. for him to only receive a redacted version of the relevant documents, which is possible under art. 22(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court of Appeals now agrees. Mekic can say what he likes, but he won't get all the information that the District Court held he's entitled to until after the Court of Appeals has given its substantive judgment.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you hadn't noticed, the federal government is still "shut down".

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I hadn't noticed. Thanks for the reminder.

About the only impact this is having on me currently is that I can't drop by the SSA office to notify them I'm starting to collect SS in January. I'll be in real trouble if the shutdown lasts more than a couple months...

[Martinned]

Is it, though? Because the funny thing is that all the things that would make a government shutdown inconvenient (like merger clearances) still work, while the things that are shut down are things that the people who own the government dislike (blocking mergers) or don't care about.

Krugman famously used to say that the US Federal government is an insurance company with an army, and both the insurance bit and the army bit are still getting paid. So how shut down is the government really?

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a case in point? After all, it's only been a week.

[Martinned]

Air traffic control still works too. (Well, as much as it did before the shutdown.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how has the "shut down" affected you?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, they're not being permitted to engage in the Washington Monument strategy. Instead of maximizing pain, they're minimizing it.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, no one YOU care about is gonna be impacted.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/government-shutdown-threatens-wic-food-program-used-by-millions-of-families

[ThePublius]

As cruel as it may sound to you, I think we should end these permanent welfare programs, like WIC, SNAP, EITC, and so forth. They are rife with fraud, and do no good for people in the long run, who should learn to be self sufficient. I understand temporary aid, but these programs end up being permanent support.

[Martinned]

So you can't really make fun of the shutdown when the whole design of the shutdown is to only shut down things that people like you wouldn't object to shutting down.

[Mr. Bumble]

You and Il Douche need to direct your concerns to Don Schumer.
The purpose of the CR was to fund the government at current levels for 7 weeks (now 6 weeks) while attempting to craft regular
appropriations.

[ThePublius]

"...both the insurance bit and the army bit are still getting paid. So how shut down is the government really?"

Wrong.

"Due to the current government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, active-duty soldiers are not getting paid, but are required to report for duty. Their pay has been halted until Congress passes new legislation to fund the government or specifically authorize military pay."

[ThePublius]

"and the army bit are still getting paid."

Are you going to concede that you are wrong on this, or just ignore it and move on?

[Brett Bellmore]

Illinois Democrats escalate confrontation with Trump’s ICE sweeps, National Guard deployments

"Illinois officials made a bid for sanctuary supremacy Monday with Chicago’s mayor signing an executive order declaring city property to be “ICE-free zones” and the city and state suing to block President Trump from sending in the National Guard to quell protests of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mayor Brandon Johnson accused ICE of “a forceful display of tyranny.” He vowed to fight back with his order banning federal agents from using city property and “unwilling” businesses as staging grounds for immigration arrests.

“We need ICE out of our city,” he said. “ICE lies, and people die.”"

The Fort Sumpter moment is getting closer, it looks like.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who will enforce it?
Will this lead to blue on blue events?

[Sarcastr0]

FFS.

"suing to block President Trump"
"Fight back with his order"

This is not civil war type talk.

Don't fall for clickbait.

[apedad]

"The Fort Sumter (sic) moment . . . . "

Yeah, no.

"The First Battle of Fort Sumter began on April 12, 1861, when South Carolina Militia artillery fired from shore on the Union garrison," so traitors firing on a legally established United States military establishment.

There are no traitors in Chicago.

[Nelson]

Well, except ICE. Swearing to uphold the Constitution and then violating it is the definition of betraying your country.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, it's Tuesday and Monday's open thread is still somewhat active.
What this comment section needs is some sort of notification system if you are logged in to let you now there are new comments and possibly a notification that there has been a response to one of your comments

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it would be possible to come up with a system to do that that ran separately from Reason, a very limited webcrawler.

[Life of Brian]

Just flagging new comments would be simple enough, but trying to notify about replies would have fairly limited value since there wouldn't be any principled way to decide who was replying to whom once the comment depth hits its max, and that's often where the multi-day discussions end up. (In fact, it could have negative value since the original level-8 commenter would get an ongoing barrage of notifications from every level-9 reply, when they themselves may have exited the discussion long ago.)

I do sense, though, that some here may have cobbled something together like that given their improbable percentage of rapidfire responses -- giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually have a life and aren't just frantically refreshing over and over.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey LoB. I'm just spitballin' here. I do hate the nesting and the long chains it creates.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is a real hoot. Page 6, if it doesn't come up direct; Complaining about Israeli treatment of Palestinians, they used a picture of an Israeli hostage Hamas starved...

[ThePublius]

Bad link, try this one:
https://x.com/MaxNordau/status/1975598065970262095?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1975598065970262095%7Ctwgr%5Eb62324dd592f3802299edfa006d1193c211356c4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F749268%2F

Yea, these people, particularly Greta, are f'ing idiots.