Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Hmmm. One more U.S. strike on a boat in international waters. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/us/politics/trump-drugs-boat-attack.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251014&instance_id=164418&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=207891&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f/ The New York Times reports:

The United States killed six men aboard a boat in international waters “just off the Coast of Venezuela,” President Trump wrote on social media on Tuesday, asserting without evidence that they had been transporting drugs.

The strike was the fifth known attack by the U.S. military on such boats since Sept. 2. The military has now killed 27 people as if they were enemy soldiers in a war zone and not criminal suspects.

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks, and was transiting along a known” route for smuggling, Mr. Trump said in his social media post.

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly NG, I am not hearing much from Congress about it. One would think that Congress-critters might want to discuss an issue (war) that is squarely in their wheelhouse. And sinking boats in int'l waters is an act of war. BTW, that studious silence is bipartisan.

All that said, I don't have sympathy for druggies. They can be converted to shark shit for all I care.

[Martinned]

I don't think war means what you think it does...

[Frank Drackman]

You run that by your King-Buggerer fist?
No typo.

[Kazinski]

WAR = Wins Above Replacement

If we use Joe Biden as an example of a Replacement President, defined as a generic politician readily available for league minimum, and calculate how many additional wins Trump would have over the theoretical Joe Biden Replacement President, then he is having an 8 WAR season (to put that in context Aaron Judge just had a 10 WAR season, and Cal Raleigh had a 9.1 WAR season.

Part of the problem that is keeping the President from having an a a 10+ WAR year, is he is a liability on defense, Judge for example had slightly negative defensive rating, but made up for that in Offense. Trump on the other hand is historically bad at defense, and only his incredible focus on Offense is keeping his WAR as high as it is.

[John F. Carr]

We could imagine an alternate constitution where the President could force a yes or no vote on a policy. Members of Congress, are you going to stand up for the rights of narco-terrorists or approve violations of international law?

Such a constitutional rule would also end a lot of administrative law disputes.

[not guilty]

Or if the President wants to wage war, he can ask Congress for authorization.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that we are a lot closer to a war than you may realize, and rumor has it that the Congressional leaders have already been advised.

That said, what did we and the British do with Pirates?

[David Nieporent]

Arrested them. But since these aren't pirates, it's hard to see how that's relevant to anything.

[mulched]

Find and pursue them.
Fire cannons at their ships.
If they heave to and strike their colors, arrest them and hang them.

[not guilty]

"I think that we are a lot closer to a war than you may realize, and rumor has it that the Congressional leaders have already been advised."

It is more than "rumor"; there has indeed been notification to Congress. That is the point of the New York Times article that I linked upthread.

But the military actions of which President Trump speaks in the notice are not "war" or anything akin thereto.

[jb]

Wrong place

[Moderation4ever]

I believe Congress did vote on this matter to reel in some of the Wars Powers act. Republicans Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted to stop these actions by the President. The measure did fail.

[Riva]

Life sure has gotten difficult for narcoterrorists and human traffickers under the Trump administration. I’m sure they can find a willing judicial insurrectionist to enter a TRO. Biden didn’t interfere. He opened the border for them. What’s President Trump’s issue? He even has the audacity to pay the troops.

[not guilty]

Uh, a declaration of war is the exclusive prerogative of the Congress, doofus.

[Riva]

Uh, the President doesn’t need a declaration of war to defend our borders and national security, you monumental imbecile.

[David Nieporent]

The phrase "national security" of course is found nowhere in the constitution.

[Riva]

Not quite sure what your point is asshole. The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President. And there’s also that little bit about making him the Commander in Chief. If you’re arguing that the President doesn’t have the power and duty to defend the borders and national security of the United States, you’re even more of a stupid asshole than I thought. I didn’t think that was possible.

[not guilty]

"The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President. And there’s also that little bit about making him the Commander in Chief. If you’re arguing that the President doesn’t have the power and duty to defend the borders and national security of the United States, you’re even more of a stupid asshole than I thought. I didn’t think that was possible."

Riva, I don't purport to speak for David (who is quite capable of responding on his own), but the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, § 8 applies not only to the powers of Congress listed in the remainder of Article I, § 8, but also to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Commander-in-chief provision of Article II, § 2, as well as all other Article II powers, are subject to Congressional authorization "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" thereof.

Authority "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is expressly vested in Congress by Article I, § 8. That would include the War Powers Act of 1973. https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/454 The President cannot act unilaterally and willy-nilly even when commanding the armed forces.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Where does it say exclusive?

[bernard11]

Don't be a moron.

Article II lists powers of the President. Why bother with that if he can do anything he wants?

Which of the powers of Congress do you think the President shares, even though nothing in the document says anything about it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Article II says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

A declaration of war is a formal announcement of an intent to wage war that used to be required in some cases under international law (less so now).

If the President decides to use his power as commander and chief to wage war, why would he be prevented from announcing it?

[David Nieporent]

The president has no power as commander [in] chief to wage war, not unless and until Congress tells him to.

[Riva]

The depths of your ignorance is staggering. How do you fucking idiots even manage to even dress yourselves in the morning?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Cite?

[Brett Bellmore]

Cool, bomb Congress out of the starting gate, and the US can't defend itself until new elections to replace the members of Congress have been conducted!

In fact, the President DOES have the power, as commander in chief, to wage defensive war without Congress telling him to.

This is not to say that I agree that bombing international shipping like he has done actually qualifies, but you do have a real tendency to dogmatically overstate your case.

[David Nieporent]

Under the constitution, Congress could eliminate the armed forces entirely.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. The ability to create (or not create) a standing army is where most of Congress’s power to check the president comes from.

Congress’s power to formally announce the country’s intent to wage war? Not so much.

[not guilty]

Yup. The ability to create (or not create) a standing army is where most of Congress’s power to check the president comes from.

Congress’s power to formally announce the country’s intent to wage war? Not so much.

Is that as true as everything else you have said, TwelveInchPissant?

Among other things, Article I, § 8 of the Constitution empowers the Congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; [emphasis added]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

What word or group of words there do you fail to understand?

[Martinned]

In fact, the President DOES have the power, as commander in chief, to wage defensive war without Congress telling him to.

Not without a current or imminent attack against the United States he doesn't.

[Riva]

According to whom little troll? You? A federal judge? Sounds like a matter for the president to decide. And if Congress disagrees, they’re welcome to argue the matter with the executive.

[Riva]

Don’t be a moron, Bernie.

Defending our borders and national security is not doing “anything he wants.” It’s at the core of his power and duty as President and Commander in Chief.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And NG still hasn't explained why he thinks a declaration of war is required in the current circumstance.

[AmosArch]

Were we at war for every guy Obama lit up with a Predator drone?

[windycityattorney]

No; but assuming they alleged those that were droned were part of al-queda or similar then at least there was a congressional AUMF. Open ended in time and geography [and hence problematic in its own right]...but at least it was something.

What does Trump have? His own executive order naming drug dealers terrorists? His own proclamation that we are engaged in hostilities with them? I, too, can circlejerk my way to a justification. Not really a legal justification, mind you. Trump benefits from immunity. His subordinates? Not so much. Although I am sure the regular bootlickers will argue 'just following orders' is now also 100% legal justification.

[Martinned]

The US was a party to the war in Iraq and the civil war in Yemen, yes.

[Frank Drackman]

Just pretend they're Israelis and you'll be fine with it.

[wvattorney13]

That sure is some neutral non-biased reporting by the NY Times. "asserting without evidence" "as if they were enemy soldiers in a war zone and not criminal suspects"

But you guys keep it up. Here's a hint: nobody cares about drug dealers getting killed. People like seeing a leader who finally does more than just talk while the country goes to hell. You miss this point every.single.time when it comes to Trump. That's why he keeps beating you.

He's on the side of us. You are throwing in with Venezuelan drug smugglers. Who wins that debate?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Where is the evidence which makes the NYT report biased?

Where is there any evidence that these are not innocents being killed?

When deadly violence is used, those are normative questions. Your complicity is reprehensible to echo politically self-serving assertions presented without the usually required evidence.

[Krayt]

Not keen with what he's doing, but if these are innocents, let the nation of origin demonstrate so and embarrass the US and Trump.

Same for act of war. If innocent, claim act of war on top of it. If guilty of being drug runners, claim act of war anyway. Good luck with the latter.

[bernard11]

Not keen with what he's doing, but if these are innocents, let the nation of origin demonstrate so and embarrass the US and Trump.

I think you have that backwards. If Trump claims these are drug runners or terrorists let him prove it in court.

I am astonished that so many here are ready to just accept Trump's claim at face value, and support killing the alleged criminals based only on that.

It's also interesting to me that so many of those people hate the government and consider it hopelessly incompetent, but are happy to accept these killings purely on the government's say-so.

[loki13]

That's ... kind of the point, isn't it? I mean, this is exactly the playbook favored by authoritarians- it's practically a rinse and repeat of what happened in the Philippines (sorry, I know that we 'Murikans don't care what happens in other countries).

Yes, you are right! Who cares if a bunch of drug smugglers get blown up? Let's ignore the fact that ... we don't have any proof other than the administration's assertions (and they've never lied to us) that they are drug smugglers each time. And that even if these are drug smuggling boats, there are no other people on board (like trafficked people). Let's just assume ... the following-
1. The administration never lies.
2. There are never any mistakes in intelligence.
3. There are never any innocent people on board the targets.

Assume all of these. Now, let's point out the following-
1. None of these boats was actually going to America. I assume you don't know much about drug smuggling, but boats from Venezuela like this don't zoom zoom to America- they go to other destinations, and then offload, and then boats from those places go to other places (that are usually, but not always, America). Or they offload and go overland (if Mexico).
2. None of these boats was a threat to any military target, or given a chance to standdown- they were targeted without warning.
3. All of these people were killed for a crime- well, assumedly a crime- not for engaging in any armed conflict with America.

That's really the debate, isn't it? Real life isn't a Hollywood movie- it feels good to just kill the baddies. But our military has rules for a reason. We don't use them to go after mere criminals abroad (and ... at home).

Let's make this simple- the problem that our southern neighbors have is us. Yeah- their own governments struggle because we... AMERICA ... have such a massive drug issue that is so profitable that groups spring up to meet OUR demand. And instead of working harder to solve OUR problem (which is massive), we make it THEIR problem.

But let's dig deeper- where does this end? If you want to tackle the fentanyl problem in this way, the fastest way to do that is to start blowing up the real drug traffickers- that's right, the massive container ships leaving China carrying precursor chemicals and going to Central and South America. But ... we don't do that, do we?

So let me ask you a serious question- what do you think is really going on here? Venezuela is a drop in the bucket when it comes to drugs coming to the US. And blowing up one of these boats is ... nothing. All of these boats, combined, don't compare to a single coast guard interdiction (such as the recent one--- great job, CG!).

Is this really about drugs? Or about something else? And if it's about something else, why are we deliberately putting our service members at risk legally in such a way that even John "Torture is Good" Yoo is saying, "YOU KANT DO THAT!"

But sure- feel good that you are winning some sort of "debate." If you look around a room, and you don't know who the mark is, you're the mark.

[John F. Carr]

"None of these boats was actually going to America."

The First Circuit hears a trickle of cases from the Puerto Rico involving drug smugglers caught near enough to the island to be brought there for trial. The cases don't say where the defendants were headed. Under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act it is not necessary to prove intent to reach the United States.

[loki13]

1. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory. If they're caught "close enough" to Puerto Rico, then they're close to the U.S.

Um, you know that, right? We are talking about territorial waters.

2. The point I was making that I assume you are missing is that we repeatedly hear the Administration claim that they were heading to the US. They were not. And the issues regarding criminal prosecution of drug traffickers are not the same issue as extrajudicial killings- which they are, unless we are either at war and they are enemy combatants (see also, AUMF) or otherwise authorized (they fired on us).

This is kind of the whole point- the deliberate blurring of law enforcement and military activity. They are not the same thing. I don't like money launderers, and arguably they are the engine of the drug trade; that doesn't mean we can start launching tomahawks at banks in Panama.

Right?

[Armchair]

Well, if I was to take Mr. Carr's implication, it was that drugs were being smuggled to Puerto Rico via boat...likely from Venezuela, given the relative geography.

And since you so wisely pointed out that PR is part of the US....

[Magister]

I think John F. Carr was talking about other cases in which a destination could be inferred, since none of the recent sinkings would have had any proceedings in any US court. My understanding is that the boats sunk recently were near Venezuela, to the point that the Venezuelan government believes they may have taken place in its territorial waters.

[Commenter_XY]

Any northerly heading by the druggie boat was 'heading to the US', technically speaking. What was the point of origin and what was the point of interception?

Congress is taking a knee. What else do you call it?

[Sarcastr0]

An attorney taking issue with noting an assertion is being made without evidence? That's not bias, that's actually what is going on.

If the assertion is false, we're just murdering Venezuelans. That seems something we should nail down!

[not guilty]

MAGAts are inordinately fond of bloodlust. Especially non-white bloodlust. What does that say about them?

[jay.tee]

Jussie, is that you?

[jimc5499]

You're right. When it comes to druggies I'm in favor of it being open season with no bag limit. I used to sit there in a helicopter off Florida and watch them throw bales and cartons off of ships to the speedboats. The boats would haul it aboard and take off. All we were allowed to do was phone it in. As a trained door gunner I could have wreaked some havoc with an M-60 or M-2.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the place for your mass shooter fantasies.

[Estragon]

“I could have wreaked some havoc”

Does it please you to imagine that? Does it give you pleasure to fantasize about such things? Do you get tingly? Does your heart beat faster, does your blood flow quicker? Are you tumesced?

[Kazinski]

We should issue letters of Marque to helicopters and vessels, including droneships.

And of course bounties for the drug boats to fund the privateers.

[Sarcastr0]

Shades of the guy who thought bringing back dueling would solve a lot of social problems.

Lots of stuff is in the dustbin of history for a reason.

[Estragon]

Don’t forget musk assassinating Brazilian judges with orbital based weapons!

[Kazinski]

I liked that idea, but I didn't think that was what Musk was actually doing, unlike Sarcastro (since he doesn't think Elon is actually trying to go to Mars, then Bond Supervillain is about the only alternative).

If you think of what SpaceX actually did this earlier this week, fly from Texas to the Indian Ocean in about an hour. Since Starship has a cargo capacity of 100 tons, and potentially 200 tons, even if that can't all landed covertly, it would certainly be enough for a covert space plane that could land anywhere on earth within 2 hours with a special ops team.

Which would allow a surgical assault on the Brazilian Supreme Court.

[Estragon]

No, you were rhetorically jacking off to the idea of orbital bombardment in response to unfavorable court rulings. You are a very serious person.

[Kazinski]

I wish I could be more serious about it.

You're telling me there is hope?

[David Nieporent]

WVA just going straight to the pro-Hitler stance.

[Armchair]

Ah yes, Hitler, famous for peace in the middle east between Jews and Muslims...

[Magister]

In the 1930s, plenty of Americans hated FDR and admired the job-creating economic-recovery-through-massive-deficit-spending Hitler, all while dismissing the Jewish persecution as minor and the fault of the Jews. They were people who reasoned like wvattorney13 and Armchair.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since Mr. Trump and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, started the operation last month, a broad range of legal specialists have called the premeditated and summary extrajudicial killings illegal. They noted that the military cannot lawfully target civilians — even criminal suspects — who do not pose a threat in the moment and are not directly participating in hostilities.

Not sure about Fifth Avenue, but apparently, he is trying to see if he can oversee murdering people (aka "lethal kinetic strikes" to use Trump's term via his social media account) on the high seas without any negative consequences.

[loki13]

Well, he can definitely do it without any consequences thanks to SCOTUS.

But the people that follow his orders do not have the immunity of a King, unfortunately.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, they don't have immunity, but putting aside the pardon power, people have reason to think that prosecution there is a long shot.

The sensible first step would be congressional hearings to examine the decision-making that went into the killings, including the specific procedures and details involved. This would include examining the chain of command and the various actors involved.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yoo is quoted here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/trump-gop-officials-strikes-venezuela-00567212

[not guilty]

We can expect Congressional oversight hearings if control of the House changes. That is crucial.

[Armchair]

Just a reminder...Obama ordered the assassination by drone of US Citizens without a trial.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh, well then, I guess it's all okay. Obama is apparently the gold standard for Presidential behavior.

[Armchair]

Glad we settled that.

[David Nieporent]

Just a reminder: as bad as Obama's drone war was, Congress had enacted an AUMF. Congress never authorized Trump to murder Venezuelans.

[Armchair]

"Congress had enacted an AUMF"

Really? Precisely what wording and logic in that AUMF allowed the assassination of a US Citizen in Yemen, one who had been peacefully studying in the US during the 2001?

Is there any evidence that links Al-Awlaki to 9/11? Any at all? Any evidence he was providing material support for Al Queda during this time?

[Sarcastr0]

Been a while since we've seen a But Obama around here.

[dwb68]

US plans to power military with small portable Janus reactors.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-army-plans-to-power-bases-with-tiny-nuclear-reactors-c41c1383?mod=mhp

The future of power generation is here.

These will also power your local moon base or hotel in orbit at L2.

[Nelson]

We wouldn’t have such issues with power generation if the Chicken Littles would just get out of the way and allow nuclear to freely compete in the market. Massive energy production, carbon-free, and green, with little waste product.

It’s so ironic to me that the ones who decry the carbon output of coal plant are often the ones who are simultaneously preventing the technology that would put them out of business from thriving.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is not so much the opposition as the lack of any real highly visible proponents of nuclear power. Trump is a throw back looking to promote coal. There are plenty of advocates for wind and solar. But nuclear seems an orphan child.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's too many orphan children, abandoned by their parents, who want to go out gallivanting again.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are two basic problems in the way of a nuclear rennisance:

1. The regulatory environment is insane, still based on the known bad linear no threshold (LNT) theory of radiation risk. Essentially, nuclear is the rare industry where the regulators were captured by the opponents of the industry, not the industry itself.
2. Even if you can overcome this, it only takes one anti-nuke administration every 12-16 years to render investment impossible because nobody trusts that they won't have their investment suddenly rendered worthless.

[ducksalad]

Hate to bring the rare non-Trump comment thread back to him, but your Item 2 is closely related to having arbitrary regulatory power in the executive branch. Doesn't matter whether it's a captured regulatory agency that's not held accountable, or a strong unitary executive who is anti-nuke. Either one kills the project.

A long term solution would be for Congress to get some expert advice and then write most of the rules as statutes with a non-discretionary "shall issue" checklist. The bad part is that it's almost impossible to get Congress to pass something like this. The good part is that if they did pass it, it would be almost impossible to undo it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's enabled by having arbitrary regulatory power in the executive branch, but lots of industries don't get driven out of existence as a result, because most industries you don't have one of the parties trying to put them out of business.

I do agree with the solution, though: Statutory limits on how aggressive the NRC can be.

Perhaps starting with mandating that they stop pretending the LNT theory is good science. It was never driven by science, it was just the conservative assumption back when we didn't know better, but now we do: Radiation hormesis is a real thing.

[jimc5499]

Shoot your local Greenpeace or Sierra Club member.

[Krayt]

Suing with sob stories from sacred lands to little anipals, check!

Setting up businesses to supply new mandates and ride it up, check!

Not seeing how the power monger class can profit from nuclear, except getting in the way. Ohhhhhh...

The Three Gorges dam is 70x the size of the Hoover dam. China's building another that's 3x the size of that.

We have a lawyer/politician class that profiteers from getting in the way of that. Our government no longer keeps the trade routes open, the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause, but uses it for historic corruption ways, as is done in countries with corruption.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nelson — No irony from me. I am tired of a nuclear promotional industry which runs on lies. No reason at all to give the benefit of the doubt this time, after a record of time-after-time promises made and promises not merely broken, but utterly disregarded.

For starters, every claim for superior economy made by nuclear advocates will remain non-credible, until there is a record of the real cost of cleaning up nuclear messes. That record will not exist until all the existing messes have been cleaned up.

It would greatly benefit the nuclear industry with the public to do the clean-ups, but they continue to evade. The reasonable inference is that the nuclear industry reckons its own costs are always too high to justify, and too embarrassing to discuss candidly. That is why the proposed solutions are always new technologies discussed de novo, to exclude discussion of the record.

The nation is awash in unsafely stored high-level nuclear waste, plus many instances of uncontrolled, unbounded, dispersed nuclear pollution. At least one of the worst examples of the latter kind of pollution—at the Idaho National Laboratory north of Idaho Falls—has never even been formally disclosed to the public. That one encompasses almost 900 square miles, and hosts the world's largest concentration of nuclear reactors, many of them abandoned.

Add the mess at Hanford Washington which keeps expanding, and dispersed pollution from the Nevada test site, and those by themselves are industry-cost back-breakers.

There is also the matter of plutonium already circulating in private commerce—at least thousands of critical masses, lightly supervised—with the usual private priority to keep costs down. See how easy it is to find out the details necessary to estimate the national or international peril that creates.

So the right stance for the public on nuclear generation now is, clean it all up first, then talk about what you can do better later. If that gets resisted, it's crazy public policy to invite getting worked over again. Clean it up, or no to nuclear.

Renewables, plus management efficiencies, plus user conservation, plus progress in renewable engineering technology will get the job done.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The base nuke plant strikes me as a prime enemy target -- all the benefits of using a nuke without any of the liability.

[jimc5499]

Pebble reactors. Hit it and all you get is some low grade local contamination. There's no Earth shattering KABOOM there.

[John F. Carr]

In the 1980s Scientific American published an article about what if somebody hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear warhead. Twice the fallout.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given storage of almost all the aggregate high-level waste on site at the reactors, that Scientific American result may be a tiny fraction of what would happen now.

[Kazinski]

The Democrats had absolutely terrible luck on their shutdown strategy. Their game plan was to try to show the GOP as both lazy and heartless.

But then to have the Gaza piece deal come together so quickly, and then end two major humanitarian crises if one fell swoop, and to have all the principles to the agreement crediting Trump and thanking him, it just collapses the narrative.

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of shut down....Kaz, did the world as we know it end, yet? It has been two weeks. My life, and the lives of pretty much everyone around me remain unaffected, despite the terrifying, world-ending fed gov't shutdown.

I would note that the Fed Gov't has several thousand fewer non-essential DC employees than it did 2 weeks ago. More pink slips are going out this week. Maybe the newly unemployed bureau-critters can call Chuck Schumer and tell him what they think of his splendid shutdown strategy.

Maybe the Senator can refer them to a coding boot camp so they can learn to code.

[Martinned]

There is no government shut down. All the bits of the government that people like you care about are still running.

[Commenter_XY]

Tell that to Senator Schumer and Congress-critter Jeffries; they'll appreciate the eurotrash update.

[Martinned]

Go ahead. Tell me about something the Federal government does that you care about and that's shut down.

[DDHarriman]

Nothing. It does nothing I care about. It does nothing I care about that's shutdown.

"Shutdown" is a fake ceremony the politicos do. It's meaningless just like 80% of Congress.

[Martinned]

QED

[DDHarriman]

This is the only thing you and I are in agreement on.

These "shutdowns" are just political theater. Every day that goes by just further confirms it.

[Martinned]

Oh, no, things are being shut down. But the things that are being shut down are, by design, things that nobody with political influence minds shutting down. Like, in my policy field, government lawsuits blocking mergers, but also NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/shutdown/

[DDHarriman]

The online version of Washington Monument Syndrome.

lol good one

[Martinned]

So what is it? Do you care about NASA or don't you?

[CountmontyC]

Elon Musk has basically turned NASA into an antique of an agency. The private sector in the USA is who is putting satellites into space.

[Sarcastr0]

SpaceX is specifically about launches.

There's a lot more to NASA than that.

[CountmontyC]

You mean Musk has no plans to get to Mars? So Sarcastro what is NASA doing recently?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I don’t believe Musk has any actual plans to go to Mars.

You are pretty gullible of he’s convinced you otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, I don’t believe Musk has any actual plans to go to Mars.

You are pretty gullible of he’s convinced you otherwise."

Wow. Politics really can drive people crazy, can't it?

What exactly WOULD it take to convince you that Musk is serious about Mars? SpaceX announcing it's pricing structure for delivering payloads to Mars starting in 2030, ($100M per metric ton) wasn't enough for you?

[CountmontyC]

Sarcastro Musk has put a lot of resources into a Mars expedition. What makes you think it's a fraud?

[Sarcastr0]

A plan, Brett.

A plan that brings up and addresses the many well known issues with humans going to Mars.

I'm sure Musk WANTS to go to Mars; that doesn't mean he's doing anything effective about doing so.
And certainly it doesn't mean SpaceX is supplanting NASA when it comes to manned space flight.

I don't think either of you know much about space policy, NASA, or Musk's history.

[DDHarriman]

Everyone of Musk's companies feeds into his Mars vision.

But, not to Sarcastr0!!

From the Boring Company, to Tesla self driving cars, Optimas, neuralink, to even X (the everything app). Each of these serves a purpose in a Mars community.

To humans that look, they can see this obvious common thread. But not to govies or other Democrats. Are they even human?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't think either of you know much about space policy, NASA, or Musk's history."

I have been a space fanatic since before I helped found a chapter of the L-5 society in college. I probably know more about the technical requirements of space colonization than you have any clue even exists.

There are things Musk needs to do before colonizing Mars that he hasn't done yet, but there's time to do them, and if they don't work out?

Then almost all the work would be useful for colonizing someplace else, or for other purposes. Not wasted at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Your priorities don't seem to be keeping up on what NASA is doing, nor the research into the challenges of going to Mars. Radiation, landing, and lack of gravity spring to mind.

That's the cool thing about podcasts - NASA has 3. They keep me up to date on NASA's latest cool plans and programs.
Well, they did. The podcast is furloughed.

[DDHarriman]

Hey guys, did you hear that? Sacastr0 subscribes to ALL THREE NASA podcasts!

He's practically a NASA Ph.D.!! Maybe not that, but subscribing to NASA podcasts definitely grants him authority to speak on their behalf. Whereas everyone else who isn't a subscriber is just a normie who doesn't have all the same NASA esoterica.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Your priorities don't seem to be keeping up on what NASA is doing, nor the research into the challenges of going to Mars. Radiation, landing, and lack of gravity spring to mind."

Again, helped found college chapter of L5 society. As a teen I derived the equations for Hohmann transfer orbits from Newtonian physics, and worked out why Oberth maneuvers worked, in high school, for fun. The first thing I did when I got my first home computer was write an orbital dynamics simulator in Turbo Pascal, to analyze space missions.

What the heck makes you think I'm not familiar with those topics?

Why did SpaceX specialize in retropropulsive landings? Because there's not enough atmosphere on Mars to use parachutes!

Radiation isn't a show stopper, the Starship for travel to Mars will likely be designed with a radiation shelter surrounded by payload, and I'm betting that's where the berths for sleeping will be.

Martian radiation levels are higher than MOST places on Earth, at 240-300 mSv per year. 50 times higher than the average level on Earth. But people live without apparent problem in places like Ramsar, Iran, which have comparable levels of radiation.

And that's the radiation level OUTSIDE the habitat. Inside will be comparable to Earth. The average even for people with outside jobs will be easily tolerated. It won't even be as high as experienced on the ISS!

People are a lot more radiation resistant than you appreciate.

Gravity is the real potential show-stopper, while we know that zero gravity isn't enough for human health, and that 1 gravity is, we really don't know anything about the shape of the curve between.

Once Starship is flying one of the first priorities should be a partial gravity lab in LEO, to gather data on that topic. Fortunately, the easiest way to do that would actually be to take two Starships outfitted as though they were making the trip to Mars, (Except with extra medical monitoring equipment...) and connect them with tethers to spin bolo style to produce appropriate gravity levels for human testing.

By adjusting the relative fuel loads, one can be at Mars gravity, and the other Lunar. And while conducting the biological research SpaceX can also do long duration testing on spacecraft systems, especially life support.

And, yeah, I bet NASA will pay them to do this...

[Sarcastr0]

I’m sure you were into space at one time, but your priorities have shifted since then. You haven’t been keeping up on what NASA does. And your Musk worship is empty.

You try and show your expertise with a lot of writing, but it’s shallow hot takes.

Like radiation shielding isn’t magic. And the radiation of space isn’t just weak sources like shielding here on earth needs to deal with. It’s a huge volume constraint problem.

And oh we will study gravity is not even a roadmap much less a solution.

Thinking about issues is good. But if you want to lend any weight to your opinions, you need to hear what other people are thinking and have done.
I’m sure I have some stuff wrong, but I’m putting some time in out of interest.
Otherwise it’s not even really an interest, it’s just putting in a costume to argue in the Internet.

On the upside I think you have thought if the issues more than Musk has.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think you're the guy who should be talking about shallow hot takes here. You've supplied nothing but.

Again, the measured radiation level on Mars is comparable to that in places on Earth where people live for generations without any problem. The only REAL radiation issue is the radiation level during the trip there.

The issue there is that enough shielding to protect against a solar flare is enough shielding to turn cosmic rays into cosmic ray secondaries. But Starship has enough cargo capacity that by spending most of your time in the middle of the cargo BOTH can be brought down to feasible levels.

I don't think you quite appreciate how much it helps having payloads measured in hundreds of tons rather than kilograms.

[Sarcastr0]

I've got a Swedish sandwich cake to make so I'm not going to go into detail on the radiation thing, but it's not the same as earth.

Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere so you get solar wind which is nasty stuff - protons have high cross-section of scattering, but at relativistic speed radiation shielding appears thinner, so you need more of it. It's a volume and speed (and thus time in transit) problem more than a weight problem.

The big thing I'm talking about here is method - you don't keep up on stuff, you just think it out for yourself. That's not a sustainable way to be, if you want to be right and not just feel right.

I didn't come up with this on my own - I'm not that clever.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exploration-from-the-poles-to-the-heavens/id1436616330?i=1000677428041

https://www.nasa.gov/podcasts/houston-we-have-a-podcast/mars-is-hard-heres-why-2/

For some fun, check out the strategies space agencies have used to land on Mars. The thin atmosphere means the ways we came up with for Earth don't work.

[Riva]

It must be frustrating for you. The usual democratic lies and misbehavior are just not working. Go to your quiet space and have a good cry.

[jb]

Episode number 27 of MAGA bringing up you shutdown and pretending that the Democrats are talking about it all the time.

[Kazinski]

They aren't talking about it?

First rule of the Shutdown Club is you have to talk about the Shutdown, constantly. Otherwise there is no point.

[jb]

I'm sure some Democrats are talking about it, but nowhere near as incessantly as you guys.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — That's the kind of forward-looking commentary which makes monkeys out of journalists foolish enough to indulge in it.

To me, the most obvious think about the bruited Gaza peace deal is the apparent ignorance of the sources talking about it. Everything I hear implies agreements on future conditions which go unmentioned in the coverage. So maybe there are double-crosses not yet out in the open.

I might be content to give Trump credit for this deal after a year or two, if it lasts that long. And if it becomes possible to understand what means brought it about.

If it came about because Trump, or his family, or minions, or counter-parties, seized opportunities for criminal grift which no American president ought to use, hind-sight will enable us to subtract from Trump's credit accordingly. Likewise if renewed Gaza violence results.

You could go ahead and say, who cares about the grift, the good it did is self-evidently greater. But you will not know whether that is right until the harm you get by living with that as a standard becomes the expected norm.

[Kazinski]

I'll tell you the means that brought it about, it was Israel and the US totally crushing Iran in June.

Hamas had already been defeated by then, and Hezbollah completely defanged, but until June Hamas still had a supposedly very dangerous Iran supporting it.

Then suddenly Iran isn't dangerous anymore, and Hamas has no hope.

As Bernstein said today on Twitter:
"It's less important whether Hamas has really agreed to disarm and give up power than whether Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar have agreed that Hamas must disarm and give up power. Terrorist movements like Hamas facing much stronger enemies like Israel can't survive without outside support."

And Iran is no longer even worth mentioning.

As for "Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar" rearming Hamas, I think the chances are slim, not that Israel the Israeli Air Force would bomb them, but Mossad might.

I wonder now if the Mossad attack on Hamas in Qatar helped the peace process along or not, it didn't seem to hurt.

[Martinned]

Hamas had already been defeated by then

Yes, and Israel kept bombing Gaza and shooting at Gazans all the same. Which they would have kept doing if it wasn't for the international community applying a successful carrot & stick approach.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0ex18xx9xeo

[Brett Bellmore]

It turns out you can't stop a war after you've defeated the foe, if the foe stupidly insists on continuing to fight you.

[Martinned]

That's not what "defeated" means.

[Kazinski]

Hamas finally realized last week, that once you are beaten then its time to surrender.

Japan was also beaten by the time we dropped the 2 A bombs to remind them to surrender.

Germany was already beaten even before Hitler shot himself in his bunker, but the Russian tanks kept rolling, ours too.

[Martinned]

Hamas did not surrender. They're complete (religious) nutcases. They will never surrender.

[Mr. Bumble]

So how does it end?

[Martinned]

With someone taking over in Gaza who has the ability to shut Hamas down. And that requires legitimacy in the eyes of the Gazan population, because shutting Hamas down requires that ordinary Palestinians risk summary execution by terrorists to tell the government, their government, that person X is in Hamas, or that Hamas will carry out attack Y.

That's why the UK couldn't make peace in Norther Ireland without talking to Martin McGuinness and the rest of Sinn Fein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#Parties

[Mr. Bumble]

How does one tell the good vipers from the bad vipers?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mr. Bumble — Wrong question. In the context Martinned cited, the question is effectual vipers vs. ineffectual vipers.

The deciders who distinguish those categories must be the people of Gaza, and they will have to achieve an agreement amounting to consensus. If you think it is hard to imagine how to make that happen, then you begin to grasp how difficult it will be to find a legitimate political solution for Gaza.

What would not be hard to imagine is a neo-colonial solution, with Gazans in perpetual thrall to foreign overlords. Those would be foreign overlords who rule at pleasure, with an eye to personal profits, backing up those prerogatives with force supplied either from the profits, or from alliances, most likely alliances with Israel or the U.S.

A major question for U.S. policy looks likely to be whether it is good U.S. policy to make the Trump family (plus minions and acolytes) the overlords, or at least give them a lucrative place among the overlords. If you conclude doing that might lead to a troubled future for the U.S., then you may be onto something.

[CountmontyC]

So who is this group that if the USA and the rest of the west recognized could shut down Hamas and represent the Palestinian people of Gaza?

[Swede425]

The Freemasons, or perhaps Rotary International.
I'd include Knights of Columbus as well, but they don't let ANYTHING interrupt Wednesday night bowling league.

[wvattorney13]

But I keep hearing that these "ordinary Palestinians" should have a full vote and statehood. Why would we do that when they are so beholden to terrorists that if given any power they will simply give terrorists more power?

[John F. Carr]

I have heard positive comments about the building of German democracy after WW2. Start at the local level with foreign policy dictated by occupying powers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Imagine how hard that would have been if the Nazis had been in complete control of German society including K-12 education for several generations prior to WWII. You're talking about a society where most people can't even recall a time when genociding the Jews wasn't job one.

[Sarcastr0]

Plus they're all Muslims, Brett! I hear those guys are inherently violent on accounta Muhammed not being peaceful like Jesus.

[CountmontyC]

Person knowledge? Or are you hoping that Hamas will rise again?

[Martinned]

I didn't realise someone was here taking the view that Hamas are actually very reasonable people.

[Joe_dallas]

Yet how often over the last two years did you advocate for a war strategy that would have terminated hamas. I recall almost every comment you made was effectively to prevent israel from destroying hamas

[Martinned]

The law should be followed even if it is inconvenient to you.

[Joe_dallas]

The law was being followed!

Thanks for confirming the very point I made below:

I will add that it would have been a rare occasion that any of the liberals/leftists, etc posting advocated of a solution that would bring lasting peace to the Irsaeli/Palestinian region.

[Joe_dallas]

I will add that it would have been a rare occasion that any of the liberals/leftists, etc posting advocated of a solution that would bring lasting peace to the Irsaeli/Palestinian region.

[Don Nico]

Finally you say something sensible.
Hamas is already publicly executing Gazan on the streets. They have proclaimed that they will not disarm.
Their supporters still talk about the the deeply rooted colonial mentality that continues to shape the policies of Israel and the greed of unelected dictators who sign Trump's agreement.
No, Hamas did not surrender. The ceasefire will end in a couple of weeks.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's basically right. This deal is effectively similar to the deal in January, which ended when the Israeli government walked away from the negotiating table in March, and subsequently blew it up in September. Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu honestly intended for this deal to be anything more than a ceasefire combined with a hostage exchange.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're being overoptimistic giving it a couple weeks.

But they got the live hostages back, and when Hamas inevitably violates the ceasefire agreement, Israel can return to exterminating them.

[Don Nico]

That could well be. But the soldiers need a breather

[hobie]

Likely the fall of Assad in Dec. 2024 shutdown all the arms pipelines to Hezbollah and Hamas

[DDHarriman]

Mossad runs Hamas, CIA runs ISIS.

Surely Mossad and the CIA would cooperate on getting arms to each others front groups. While Mossad controls CIA, CIA funds Mossad.

[BLPoG]

The Mossad did not attack Qatar. Mossad leadership opposed the missile strike.

[not guilty]

Politico has an interesting article about what unhinged Young Republicans talk about among themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146

Haters gonna hate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Turns out at least one Young Republican got fired from Kansas government for that. Kudos to Kansas, and to all Republicans who can still think straight. So far, no comment from the Trump administration.

[DDHarriman]

So far, no comment from the Biden administration or Obama administration regarding Jay Jones' public calls for murdering conservative children either.

[not guilty]

Whataboutism is all you got?

IOW, business as usual.

[Commenter_XY]

Live by social media, die by social media. They are being rightly denounced, and paying he price for their ill-considered words: loss of employment, public humiliation. No sympathy here.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter is unaware of any affiliation between the Young Republicans and the Republican Party,

Now, let me tell you how big a deal the Dem’s Virginia AG candidate is…

[DDHarriman]

Oh I see, he didn't apply the "guilt by association" tactic and lever this incident into whole cloth condemnation of every thing even remotely associated with it.

Which of course is the standard trope applied by the Left on the Right, while they, natch, do not apply the same standards to themselves.

Every conservative is guilty from the actions of those people in chat and must instantly and publicly have a struggle session. Whereas no Democrat is guilty from the actions of Jay Jones and only haters, racists, transphobes, and bigots are even bringing it up!

[CountmontyC]

Even Jay Jones isn't guilty for what he said in their eyes.

[Sarcastr0]

This is, of course, a strawman.

Just another excuse to go after liberals in "self defense."

[DDHarriman]

He's so guilty, every Democrat is rallying around him!

[CountmontyC]

Name any elected Democrat who has called for Jay Jones to step down due to his remarks.

[Sarcastr0]

Step down…I guess you mean drop out?

The GOPs attempts to nationalize that race haven’t gone well, have they?

Meanwhile the national Young Republicans are oops all white nationalists but that means nothing about the GOP.

Your standards don’t really allow for you to get mad without looking like a massive hypocrite.

[Bob from Ohio]

Rando nutpicking is good now!

YR and Young Democrat groups are both mainly populated by losers and idiots, and have always been.

[Sarcastr0]

The national Young Republicans isn't nutpicking, is the thing.

Your attempt to ignore the problem this makes evident is unsurprising.

The GOP is continuing to trend more and more white nationalist. That doesn't end well for minorities, including Jews.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The national Young Republicans isn't nutpicking, is the thing."

It absolutely is.

Its not the "national Young Republicans" as a group, it some YR people in a chatroom.

"including Jews."

Your faux concern is noted.

[DDHarriman]

When I nutpick it isn't nutpicking, when you nutpick it's immoral smearing! Self-censor and silence yourself!!!

[Sarcastr0]

It's their leadership, at both the state and national level.

It seems clear you're not up on the story. I guess it's easier to throw up bullshit if you don't know what you're defending.

[bernard11]

Your faux concern is noted.

Not faux.

The Christian Nationalist movement is in fact functionally antisemitic. And it includes a lot of Republicans, including, before his assassination, the great pseudomartyr Kirk.

[CountmontyC]

So you can't name one elected Democrat who has called for Jones to drop out.
Young Republicans are little more than a fraternity. They have no authority to impose any policy. Jones on the other hand should he win would be the state's attorney general with control over law enforcement and hundreds of millions of dollars of state money. Which should people be more concerned about?

[Joe_dallas]

it would be a contest for the worst state attorney general -

oops forgot about Ellison's hand in all the fraud in Minnesota (better described as his overlooking the rampant fraud )

[Sarcastr0]

Can you name one elected Republican who has condemned Laura Loomer? Or Stephen Miller?

It's a dumb game you want to play. And when I point out it's a dumb game, that doesn't mean it's time for your victory lap.

[Joe_dallas]

Ellison intentionally turned a blind eye to the massive fraud in Minnesota

Not even a close comparison
Life in the echo chamber

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can you name one elected Republican who has condemned Laura Loomer? Or Stephen Miller?"

Oh, whataboutism.

Did they threaten to kill children of political opponents?

And Loomer? Talk about nutpicking, you hypocrite.

[CountmontyC]

Well the following elected Republicans criticized Laura Loomer
Thom Tillis, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lindsey Graham, Pete Hegseth and Nancy Mace.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, when I said it was a dumb game to play, I was talking about my questions as well. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Count, your examples are doing great. Awesome job. Lindsey Graham - wow, what a leader. Truly my point about stupid games is not lost on you!

And you might want to check your AI - Hegseth bent the knee more than criticized from what I recall.

[CountmontyC]

So sad Sarcastro, so very sad. You and your fellow leftists want to make a big deal out of what is a few nobodies using bad language as compared to a candidate wishing death upon an opposition candidate and his children but most people see the difference.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha trying the reverse nutpick.

VA AG is huuge and the national young Republicans leadership s nothing!

Your standards are nonexistent, as befits a tool.

[bernard11]

Jay Jones is an asshole, but he has nothing to do with the YR's. Nothing he, or any other Democrat, has said or done absolves the YR jackasses.

This whole line of argument is unbelievably stupid.

The minute some Democrat somewhere says something stupid there are plenty of people here who start yelling about the evils of "the Left." (Yes, I'm looking at you, Brett.)

But when a group of Republicans, including government staffers and even a state senator, get caught doing this, all of a sudden it has nothing to with the GOP, but is just some random idiots.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The College Republican/Young Republican organizations are morally bankrupt and have been for decades -- it's the same thing as with the NRA. Nothing these organizations do would surprise me.

[hobie]

You realize you are talking about Turning Point

[Martinned]

Did you notice how nobody mentioned Charlie Kirk for at least a week, because too many other crazy things had happened in the meantime, so Trump gave him the Medal of Freedom to get another couple of news cycles out of him?

[hobie]

Looks like the ADL's dossier on Turning Point being full of Neo Nazis and antisemites was fairly accurate. But poor ADL got to close to the main nerve and had to be canceled. We eat our own here, Martin

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ADL cries "wolf" way too much. I support Israel, not the ADL.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Charlie Kirk. So your Divine King doesn't hand out Medals, Orders, Handjobs???

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I am NOT!

Charlie Kirk managed to remain independent of that mess.
And he was a Christian -- most of the YR/CRs aren't.

[bernard11]

No true Christians.

[Bunny495]

Your ignorance is shocking. As a Life Time NRA member I have firsthand experience with what they do. I pay $US100 a year for access to the local NRA ranges. This is way less than the local private ranges. The reasons in large part are a monthly volunteer day, donation of materials, and support from the national NRA. Every Saturday there is some type of competition with an entry fee of around $US10 which basically covers consumables. To me the most important thing is the volunteer Range Officers who strictly control shooters and any safety violation is punished with ejection.

As an aside the NRA was formed shortly after the Civil War by two Union officers who were appalled by widespread poor marksmanship of the Union soldiers and saw the need to train civilians in marksmanship. Today this is still the main function of the NRA. While I don't always agree with some of the political moves the NRA engages in (they often lobby for what I consider more restrictions on firearms) I also don't donate to the political side. You really need to get out more.

[Martinned]

So when is the NRA going to use its constitutional right to keep and bear arms for its intended purpose of resisting tyranny?

[Frank Drackman]

FAFO
and I'm ignoring your ignorance in thinking the NRA matters, it's like the AMA, an ineffectual special interest group, Amuricans exercise that right every day, even in "Blue" areas like Illinois and California, and once you get outside of San-Fran-Sissy-Co it's suddenly Louisiana (without the great Cajun food)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

When we have a tyranny to resist, I suppose, rather than an elected government pursuing policies you don't like.

[Martinned]

The President sending the army after US citizens isn't good enough for you?

[John F. Carr]

Are there a lot of NRA members in downtown LA? Or, if injunctions are lifted, Portland and Chicago?

[Brett Bellmore]

George Washington sent the army after US citizens, too.

[Martinned]

He did. And he's lucky that back then there was no NRA!

[Nelson]

Only Democratic tyranny is bad. Republican tyranny is celebrated.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To me the most important thing is the volunteer Range Officers who strictly control shooters and any safety violation is punished with ejection.

Bunny495 — That otherwise laudable precaution is also a flaw in any supposition that gun range training delivers practical gun experience for any real-world purpose. In the real world, conditions at gun ranges are nothing like conditions anywhere else. If they were, an insurance industry daunted by uncontrolled risks would shut down gun ranges.

Until you have carried firearms in the field long enough to experience a few horrifying inadvertent incidents you happen to escape unscathed, you will never learn to be realistically humble about humans' capacity to be safe around guns. Those incidents might involve the mishaps of others around you, or your own mishaps.

This thread's pro-gun advocates mostly sound nothing at all like people who have extensive practical gun experience. I have never known anyone with experience like that who was assertive about how safe guns are, or about how a well-trained gun carrier is a paragon of safety.

Instead, the experienced gun carriers I have known tend to be pessimists about others' gun skills, and reluctant to join unknown others in the field, to the point of evasions or even outright hostility. That is not merely a judgment about the failings of others. It is chiefly the product of long-examined insight into their own limitations. Because such people actually are extraordinarily careful, it takes long experience to teach themselves the limits of even extraordinary care. Thus, people with lots of practical gun experience are not likely sources of sunny estimates about gun safety.

For example, this remark is a giveaway that the person who wrote it is not yet trained reliably to carry a gun outdoors: "Your ignorance is shocking. As a Life Time NRA member , , , etc."

[DDHarriman]

I looked all over and I couldn't see a similar comment by you about Jay Jones and his public fantasies about murdering conservative children.

That's strange. Do you like murdering conservative children or something?

[hobie]

More of that MAGA white supremacy and antisemitism that doesn't exist. Nothing to see here.

[DDHarriman]

Isn't it something to see how both the Left and the Right have become antisemitic?

Maybe they should stop doing so much stuff that causes so many people to hate them.

What do you think?

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry, I enjoy breathing.
Next get Black People to stop being Black and get the Asians to fix their slanty eyes.
Maybe have the Moose-lums take a bath, and start using this Western Invention,
Toilet Paper
Seriously, in most parts of the Moose-lum world they still wipe with "Old Reliable"
Hispanics I'd leave like they are, they're basically just white people with a good tan (and better work ethic)

Frank

[Nelson]

I see. It’s the victim’s fault that people are racist and antisemitic, eh?

Do you blame the rape victim for dressing “too sexy” or the gay victim for “degeneracy” or Charlie Kirk for being hateful, too?

[DDHarriman]

Charlie Kirk? You mean did I just do the exact same thing the Democrats have done with Charlie Kirk and with violent assaults on ICE agents but applied to the sacred Jews?

Wow, you caught me cold being a hypocrite and not cleverly making a point!

[Estragon]

Pretty stunning how this next generation of GOP leaders speak to each other in private. And the imitation of Trump actually went so far as to include screwing contractors, which in a perverse way is kind of cute. Vile on numerous levels and a sad statement on where these young people feel they must go to get ahead in politics in the new MAGA.

Note to Josh Blackman and others: as I have repeatedly stated, these people are not your friends. Cast your lot in with MAGA at your own peril, eventually they will be coming for you.

Finally I would be remiss not to mention my favorite little amusing tidbit, the appearance of the number 1488! Yes, that’s right, the same 14.88 that several of the usual suspects around here strenuously asserted was just another number, a perfectly normal number to use, when MyPillow guy repriced in September of 2024. I wonder if any of those folks have had time to reflect. The receipts may be found in the open thread of September 30, 2024.

[Estragon]

And let me tell you, if you need a laugh— some of the usual suspects’ huffy hand-waving in that thread is priceless. Publius, LOB, TiP, Bob, Bwaaah, it’s a real candy lineup. LOL!

[Estragon]

https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/single/2026/40394

That group chat included a message from Douglass mocking the bathing habits of people from India, and an exchange in which Douglass’ wife, Brianna, wrote of “expecting the Jew to be honest.”

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2025-10-14/republican-state-senator-faces-calls-to-resign-after-posting-racist-messages-in-group-chat

Having spent a lot of time in Vermont, I think I can pretty confidently state this guy’s political career is toast, at least in the Green Mountain State.

[Sarcastr0]

If the trend continues, and these Millennial Nazis take over the GOP, I fully expect most on here to go right along with it, so long as they keep attacking the left.

[Estragon]

In a way, I’m almost surprised these people felt obliged to apologize. Isn’t this just the far-right part of the main MAGA platform at this point? Ditto with people like Elsie Stefanik feeling obligated to condemn. JD shows the way forward. I continue to wonder how Usha Vance is feeling these days.

[David Nieporent]

There are a lot of MAGA on social media — not so much elected officials, but pundits and such, as well as ordinary posters — who are upset about the apology. Some for strategic reasons, and some for vice signaling ones.

[Life of Brian]

I hate to interrupt the end-zone dance, but it sounds like you've somehow located a full set of the messages given that I don't see any reporting about 14.88. Would you mind sharing?

[Estragon]

“Weeks later, someone in the chat staying in a hotel asks its members to “GUESS WHAT ROOM WE’RE IN.”

See if you can guess the punchline Brian!

You may deposit your huffy handwaving below:

[Bwaaah]

I see you mentioned my name. So here I am. What the hell are you going on about? What's 14.88? If I ever discussed it, I'd like to think I presented myself as being as ignorant then as I feel like I am now.

Where's your link to something I said a year ago?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so no decimal point after all. That explains why it wasn't coming up. Too bad you didn't actually have the whole group chat rather than what I'm sure is Politico's uber-fair-minded selective disclosure.

But anyway, let's recap -- I want to make sure I understand your theory:

1. Mike Lindell puts on a sale where he prices things at $9.88, $14.88, $18.88, $19.88, and $29.88.
2. Lefty frothers spend months going apeshit over the $14.88 price.
3. Some Young Republican dude thinks it's funny they're in room 1488.

Is this one of those underpants gnomes deals where there's a secret step in the middle that somehow makes it all work? Or how do you see this all tying together?

[Bwaaah]

So if I understand this, Estragon has been obsessing over some irrelevant numerological thing for a year, and now he believes it's something real, because a Republican said "1488?"

Is he chasing stupid? Am I?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's the best I can make of it. Maybe he'll drop back by eventually and set us straight instead of just dropping catty innuendo about it in a different thread.

[Estragon]

Huffy handwaving as predicted! Transparent and pathetic from both of you— how’s that for innuendo? You can dismiss it as lefty frothers all you want— read the quotes from people who look at this stuff for a living. Or don’t!

The same people using “1488”… I guess ironically (??) are also the people “joking” (or perhaps kidding on the square?) about loving hitler, about sending folks to the showers, about “watermelon people”, raping, “unaliving” people, echoing Charlie Kirk on black pilots, scoffing at the idea that Jews tell the truth— these are your fellow travelers. Congrats!

Sure, 1488 is just a number. Publius even found some adult diapers that cost 14.88!

I guess my question is: Are you sure you are white, straight, and right- minded enough for your future mandarins?

[Bwaaah]

Whatever rabbit hole you are lost in...it apparently suits you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Given repeated lethal missile attacks, it seems odd that a supply of drug boat targets navigating in daylight continues to present itself for Trump's gruesome campaign of aerial photography. It is worth wondering what could account for such apparently suicidal stupidity. Several possibilities worth thinking about:

1. The boats targeted are piloted by people who are not carrying drugs. They keep going out because they think fishing, or transport of inoffensive cargo, or just going out on the water to beat the heat and get drunk is safe, because the U.S. is targeting drug boats,, not them.

2. They are drug boats, but piloted by people whose families are under deadly threat if they refuse to go out.

3. They are drug boats, but drug boats engaged in commerce which has nothing to do with the U.S. They foolishly expect the fact that they are plainly not headed toward any U.S.-related destination will keep them from being attacked.

4. The boats are engaged in illicit traffic which pays well, but carrying refugees, not drugs, to destinations which have nothing to do with immigration into the U.S.

5. Some or all of the boats shown are not even real, just AI fakes. That would help account for the complete lack of corroborative information about any of the attacks.

Presuming that none of those explanations applies, and every drug boat attack is a righteous arbitrary murder of people Trump despises, what makes him think he gets to do that without blow-back here in the U.S.? If drugs smuggled into the U.S. are actually involved, then so are people under cover in the U.S. involved. Likely including people with better-than-average cover, complete freedom of movement, well-armed, capable of extreme violence, and with stereotypical tastes for vengeance. Plus lots of contacts among drug customers subject to blackmail.

Those might live or work anywhere. In big cities, or impoverished rural backwaters. For instance, in a munitions plant in Tennessee which maybe makes the kinds of warheads used to arm missiles used in aerial attacks. Far-fetched, I know, but a U.S. president bragging about a campaign of aerial murder unjustified by any evidence is far out too.

If Trump is trying to gin up a real war to aggrandize his executive powers—as seems certain—why would anyone suppose the war he gets would be some kind of stupidly direct confrontation with a certain-to-lose two-bit foreign military? Maybe Trump would suppose that. But why not asymmetric warfare instead—mass casualty events here and there, with no one claiming responsibility publicly?

I might suggest the blow-back from Russia's campaign against Chechen terrorism as an example. But I know that some of that apparent terrorism was committed by Russian intelligence operatives, to provide public justification for military attacks which razed Chechnya. So that is more like an example to show urgent need to hold out-of-control authoritarians accountable to explain what they do when they get violent. Maybe the U.S. should do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's probably #6: Drug smuggling as a career attracts people who are unusually risk tolerant by ordinary standards.

"Presuming that none of those explanations applies, and every drug boat attack is a righteous arbitrary murder of people Trump despises, what makes him think he gets to do that without blow-back here in the U.S.?"

The fact that almost everybody despises drug smugglers, not just Trump?

"If drugs smuggled into the U.S. are actually involved, then so are people under cover in the U.S. involved. Likely including people with better-than-average cover, complete freedom of movement, well-armed, capable of extreme violence, and with stereotypical tastes for vengeance. Plus lots of contacts among drug customers subject to blackmail."

So, in order to imagine a big downside for Trump's policy, you have to transmogrify drug smuggling into something that would actually, not pretextually, qualify as a predatory incursion? Maybe even an actual war?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The fact that almost everybody despises drug smugglers, not just Trump?

Bellmore — Nope. Like millions of members of my generation, I grew up in a culture where illicit drug smuggling was an approved social norm. Despite being heavily penalized sometimes, that activity was commonplace, recklessly open, and even conferred social status among a crowd whose status already seemed high enough to obviate possibility of improvement.

I found myself a bit lonely in that culture, because I have always personally avoided recreational drug use. But appearance of disapproval was never motivated by moral censoriousness. To the extent I wished things otherwise, that was motivated by disappointment that drug use seemed to make my friends and acquaintances boring.

I long felt that pretty keenly as a personal loss for me, and sometimes still do. But with an older person's experience, I now see it more as expression of human character in its usual imperfections, with only the means of expression varying.

An earlier generation similarly intent on personal liberty, and similarly privileged, would have indulged tastes for fine spirits in dangerous quantities, while suffering more severe casualties, but gaining more conviviality among the survivors. That might have suited me better. In any case, I experienced the privileges more vicariously than by inheritance, and thus initially lacked the others' self-confident frame of reference.

To this day, tolerance for that culturally pervasive drug smuggling legacy remains customary among some of America's most prestigious leaders—your hero Elon Musk, reputedly. Thus, hypocrisy on that subject, however fervent, will not conjure an alternative reality with much real power to affect politics. Life-long cultural experience will not erase itself, and need for personal relief from perfectionist norms remains near universal.

Your problem is conflation of drug use with race and class. "Those people," are the targets of the scorn you invoke, not the drugs the scornful have been so long accustomed to smuggle and use themselves. Look to your own community to see the proof. It's evident everywhere.

[DDHarriman]

It didn't take long for some lib to come along and weep for the drug dealers.

[Martinned]

You misspelled "alleged drug dealers".

[DDHarriman]

Martinned, they were criticizing UK immigration policy on FB and got what the UK law says they get.

[Brett Bellmore]

I get the impression that we're roughly of the same generation; I was born in '59. Maybe you're a bit older than me.

I'm enough of a libertarian to think that drugs should be relegalized, but that's not because I actually have a favorable opinion of drug users. As I like to say, if you want to drill a hole in your head and pour in battery acid, I'll defend your right to do so, but I'll still consider you an idiot.

Rather, I support the freedom to use drugs because I think people are morally entitled to make their own decisions, even if they're stupid decisions, and because victimless crime laws have really nasty consequences for the rest of us, too.

But the war on drugs does not persist because views like mine are the majority viewpoint. It persists in large measure because the majority not only consider drug use stupid, but consider it something the government can reasonably suppress.

Now, saying "drug" is insufficiently nuanced; I'd guess the majority in most places are prepared to tolerate pot use as a vice that should at least not be sanctioned, even if it should be discouraged. I don't think, however, that tolerance extends to "hard" drugs like cocaine or fentanyl.

So, I think your personal circles aside, bombing drug smugglers' boats is not going to excite much domestic opposition. Though maybe it should from a principled legal standpoint.

You'll maybe recall back when Clinton got some incoming bad press, and diverted public attention by bombing a pharmaceutical plant (Which he dismissed as an "aspirin factory".) in Khartoum. Legally, that was a LOT more problematic than what Trump is doing, and in humanitarian terms it was nightmarish in its consequences.

But it hardly hurt him at all, in fact, he did it thinking he'd benefit from it.

If he could survive doing THAT, I don't think bombing a few drug smuggling boats is going to prove even the least bit troubling for Trump.

[wvattorney13]

"Rather, I support the freedom to use drugs because I think people are morally entitled to make their own decisions, even if they're stupid decisions, and because victimless crime laws have really nasty consequences for the rest of us, too."

We usually agree on stuff, but this is overly simplistic in my view. It imagines a world where a guy bangs out a 10 hour shift at the plant, comes home, enjoys his recreational heroin while watching the History Channel and gets up in the morning and does it all again.

The reality is that hard core drug use, by its nature, causes vast societal harm. People are addicted and don't work, sap the social welfare system, ruin the neighborhood because they live in flop houses, need money to feed their addictions so they resort to property crimes like burglary and shoplifting, and then gravitate to personal crimes like robbery.

I don't think you can realistically say, "Okay, but we'll punish those secondary things while fighting for your right to do the primary thing." Experience teaches that doing the drugs will inevitably lead to most people becoming addicted, ruining their lives, and ruining their communities. There's nothing paternalistic about society saying that you can't do that.

[Sarcastr0]

The party of small government!

And any libertarian who breaks with these people is actually a leftist!

[I'm not a decriminalization person other than wrt pot, but drug policy does show the cleavages in the MAGA coalition, and how little these ideological issues bother them. The luxury of a cult of personality is it avoids the hard work of actual politics.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree that sort of drug use, just like habitual drunkenness, causes societal harm. Mostly by rendering the users a waste of skin, but harm. Mostly but not exclusively to the user.

Efforts to effectively make it illegal cause harm, too, and mostly to the people who weren't stupid enough to use the drugs. They feed organized crime, inner city gangs, police corruption. An awful lot of our crime problems in the US are driven by the war on drugs.

That's why we gave up on Prohibition, remember, not just because people were tired of being sober. Because it was messing up society in all sorts of ways. Only, with the war on drugs, instead of giving up we doubled down.

[apedad]

One big difference between Prohibition and the War on Drugs (WoD) is that Prohibition targeted a home-grown industry (which is why it was easier to overturn Prohibition), while the WoD targets - mainly - foreign groups, so it's easier for Americans to accept the WoD actions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I get the impression that we're roughly of the same generation; I was born in '59.

Perhaps a bit more age difference than you suppose. I was born in 1946.

But we are vastly different in generational experience. For practical social and political purposes, you were too young to have first-hand insight into the cultural revolution that preceded your awareness, which cannot have happened much prior to 1964. That means you missed not only most of the defining youthful experiences of the baby boom generation, but also the most critical turns in the civil rights struggle, McCarthyism, and the experience of a militarized society bequeathed by WW II and the Korean War. Like essentially everyone without first-hand memory of Jim Crow, you underestimate its impact, its horror, and its cultural staying power.

That was all context which shaped attitudes for a lifetime. Some of it context helpful to good judgment, some the opposite.

You don't have it first-hand, and your remarks here show the usual alterations that second-hand insight mixed with later lived context are likely to deliver. Like a great many commenters here, that seems to make you an acolyte of the so-called Reagan revolution. I remain as baffled by that as I think you are about the era I described

[Don Nico]

I must agree the sociopolitical environment of those born in the late fifties and those born shortly post-WWII was vastly different

[Brett Bellmore]

Even if we are, contrary to Lathrop, both technically baby boomers.

[not guilty]

I was born in 1955. When I reached the age of majority, the military draft had been (recently) abolished, but registration for the draft was still required.

Contemplating the prospect of being conscripted while there was a senseless and unjust land war going on is quite unsettling. Being on the cusp of having to worry about being drafted, I have long noticed a difference between men just a few years older than I and men just a few years younger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

#7: We have not sunk enough drug runners yet to make anyone think that their drug boat will be sunk.

You do not need a crew of six to run a boat -- when the fear of the US becomes real, you'll see crews of one. But right now, the price of Coke is dropping, lots of boats are getting through.

[DDHarriman]

.. it's not dropping enough...

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, what's the price of Coke in your neck of the nape? Asking for a friend.

[Commenter_XY]

Surprising precisely no one, the hamas human animals have broken the terms of yet another ceasefire. Still waiting for the remaining hostages (48 hours past phase 1 deadline).

The war will resume if the guarantors (Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, etc) continue to look the other way, while hamas refuses to honor it's commitments.

[Martinned]

Gee, who could have seen that coming?

(Me, actually, on this very blog last week.)

Maybe next time involve the Palestinians in the peace talks?

But seriously, all this will do is delay the IDF withdrawal from Gaza, which was the Israeli government's intention all along, as Netanyahu told anyone who wanted to listen from day 1. Under the terms of this "deal", Israel decides if and when it wants to withdraw from Gaza, and it only needs the bare minimum of Hamas violence to stay there indefinitely.

...which of course brings us back to the situation before 2005, when Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza. Sometimes history really does repeat, particularly in the Middle East, where nobody ever seems to learn anything.

[CountmontyC]

Who are the representatives of the Palestinian people in Gaza? Because correct me if I am wrong it is Hamas.

[Nelson]

That Palestinian Authority is the internationally recognized diplomatic party for the Palestinians, not Hamas.

Hamas can be ignored, but their lock on power in Gaza would make any agreement that didn’t include them end the exact same way this one did.

[CountmontyC]

Hamas was the elected government of Gaza

[Martinned]

No it wasn't, and it certainly isn't. It fought a civil war against Fatah, that's how it ended up in charge of Gaza.

[CountmontyC]

Legislative elections were held in the Palestinian territories on 25 January 2006 in order to elect the second Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The result was a victory for Hamas, contesting under the list name of Change and Reform, which received 44.45% of the vote and won 74 of the 132 seats, whilst the ruling Fatah received 41.43% of the vote and won 45 seats.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election

[Martinned]

People from two-party systems often get confused about that word "victory". 44% of the vote is a victory in the sense that it's more votes than anyone else, but it's not a victory in the sense of "now they get to run the place".

[Don Nico]

"not a victory in the sense of "now they get to run the place"
But that is what happened.

[Martinned]

Yes, after the civil war between Hamas and Fatah in 2007. Hamas is in charge of Gaza because they shot at the people they were meant to be sharing power with, not because they won an election.

[CountmontyC]

As the link says Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats ( 56% of the seats). A clear majority of the seats. Generally having a clear majority of the seats means having control of some sort.

[Martinned]

You're forgetting the president, who was (and is) Fatah.

[Don Nico]

"Palestinian Authority is the internationally recognized diplomatic party for the Palestinians, not Hamas. "
That is delusional thinking, typical of what dominates the UN and its parasite bureaucracy.

[Martinned]

What part of that statement is "delusional", pray tell? Most of the 157 of the 193 member states of the United Nations that have recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation maintain some form of relationship with the Palestinian Authority as the representative of that nation, as indeed do a number of the countries that have not recognised Palestine, like Germany.

[Don Nico]

There is no Palestinian state. It has no defined borders. The PA has no function broad scope governmental powers. There is no capital (except in the mind of Abbas). It has no real military; it would be wiped out in a skirmish with even the weakened Hamas.

And what 157 nations "recognized" is meaningless vaporware.

[David Nieporent]

That is delusional thinking, typical of what dominates the UN and its parasite bureaucracy.

Nelson's claim is correct, and it doesn't have anything to do with the UN. Individual countries — including the U.S. — recognize the PA as the formal representative of the inchoate state of Palestine, even the ones like the U.S. that don't recognize it as the government of a legal state of Palestine.

[Martinned]

So far there are no representatives of the Palestinian people in Gaza, because anyone who might potentially take that role ends up blown up or locked up by the Israelis.

[Don Nico]

Yup, kill Jews and get caught, get locked up or shot by Israel.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(Me, actually, on this very blog last week.)"

Regular Nostradamus you are.

[Nelson]

The only ones who couldn’t make that prediction were the idiots who believed someone as shallow and transactional as Trump could secure Mideast peace.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, my point was that everyone thought that Hamas would try to wiggle out.

People were hopeful, not everyone is a sullen lefty troll like you.

Transactional is how the Mideast works. He got the living hostages out, good enough for now.

[Sarcastr0]

People around here were feting Trump and saying he deserved the Peace Prize.

You'd best start believing in cults of personality, Bob - you're in one.

[Michael P]

Hamas is also conducting summary executions of other Palestinians on unbelievable pretexts. Where is the outcry from the left about those murders?

[DDHarriman]

Haven't you seen? The Left has a bloodlust and they love murder.

[Martinned]

There is certainly a notable absence of reporting on this point on the website of The Guardian.

[Don Nico]

And that prove the gross bias of the Guardian and BBC. The public executions have been videoed and can be seen on YouTube.

[Martinned]

I was agreeing with you, at least as far as the Guardian is concerned.

Thinking that the BBC is left wing is of course completely bonkers. Also, the BBC did report on this story, for example here: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr034p5prlo

[Frank Drackman]

Good!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Where is the outcry from the left about those murders?"

No Jews, no news.

[Don Nico]

Exactly!

[Nelson]

Your caricature of “the left” is causing your comprehension problem. I am repeatedly and relentlessly (despite ample proof to the contrary) accused of being a leftist, yet I have unambiguously and constantly supported Israel’s right to defend itself.

There is a far-left contingent that is virulently anti-Israel and anti-semitic that mirrors the far-right Nazi and white supremacist movements.

There are a lot more people throughout the political spectrum (including those on the left) who support Israel but are appalled by the brutality and inhumanity of the far-right Israeli government’s strategy and tactics in Gaza. Those people aren’t anti-semitic, they are anti-Netanyahu and oppose the ultraorthodox and hard-right government. That includes a majority of Israeli Jews, as evidenced by the massive protests that have been going on (and growing) as the brutal actions of the government have continued.

The summary execution of civilians and targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure is to be decried and called out, whether it is Israel or Hamas terrorists doing it. Many on the left do so on a regular basis.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to admit "it doesn't exist".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump has essentially said that if they don't stop, he will kill them.

I think he will.

[John F. Carr]

Trump would kill lots of people if he could. Does he have the ability to kill these people?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Does he have the ability to kill these people?"
No, but the IDF does.

[John F. Carr]

If the IDF could kill those people the war would have been over in a week. Usually the IDF makes a big mess where it thinks some Hamas members are.

[Nelson]

I was assured that Donald Trump had secured peace in the Middle East. He literally had a banner made that said so. How could such a thing have happened?

As I said when the Trumpkins were falling all over themselves to claim he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, most people were hoping it was like Clinton and the Good Friday Accords and not Carter and the Camp David Agreement.

To no one’s surprise (except Trump and his sycophants), it was the latter and not the former.

[Estragon]

[Magister]

Trump could have saved money by reusing George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner.

[Harvey Mosley]

Okay, that was funny.

[Kazinski]

Kind of a wild press release from DOJ:

"Department of Justice Files Largest Ever Forfeiture Action Against Approximately $15 Billion in Bitcoin Currently in U.S. Custody
BROOKLYN, NY - An indictment was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging Chen Zhi, also known as “Vincent,” the founder and chairman of Prince Holding Group (Prince Group), a multinational business conglomerate based in Cambodia, with wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy for directing Prince Group’s operation of forced-labor scam compounds across Cambodia. Individuals held against their will in the compounds engaged in cryptocurrency investment fraud schemes, known as “pig butchering” scams, that stole billions of dollars from victims in the United States and around the world. The defendant is at large.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Department’s National Security Division also filed today a civil forfeiture complaint against approximately 127,271 bitcoin, currently worth approximately $15 billion, that are proceeds and instrumentalities of the defendant’s fraud and money laundering schemes, and were previously stored in unhosted cryptocurrency wallets whose private keys the defendant had in his possession. Those funds (the Defendant Cryptocurrency) are presently in the custody of the U.S. government. The complaint is the largest forfeiture action in the history of the Department of Justice."

I go to Cambodia every year for a month or two, and I can tell you Prince Group is a pretty big deal there in banks and real estate, but all in the last 5 years.

I'm sure almost all the 15 billion is from other countries in Asia, that's on third Cambodia's annual GDP.

But 15 billion in bitcoin using slave labor call centers is pretty impressive in any country.

[apedad]

“Most recently, the most threatening thing I’ve seen yet was the naked bicyclers in Portland who were protesting ICE,” (House Speaker Mike Johnson) added, alluding to the city’s annual “Naked Bike Ride,” which has taken place since 2004 but was convened in an “emergency” demonstration on Sunday to protest federal presence in Portland.

Sure Mikey....

[Sarcastr0]

No Kings is now antiAmerican too.

And the Cartels and Antifa got together to make some kind of superAntifa.

They’re not really bothering to try for a good sounding justification anymore. They know MAGA will support all force against all liberal seeming peoples.
And they don’t much care about anyone else’s opinion.

[DDHarriman]

They're starting to uncover the Democrat terror networks behind events like No Kings.

This is great to see the wheels of justice and accountability turning.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh, sweet! I was going to go to the No Kings event on my own, as a volunteer. Could you tell me how to contact the "Democrat terror networks" so I can get my paycheck. Or maybe just an inflatable frog costume.

Thanks in advance!

[hobie]

"Though the people behind him [Mike Johnson] appeared to stifle a smile, it does not seem that he was joking, because he went on to say that protesters have attacked officers and people have been arrested."

This is hilarious.

I hear there's a group of 'moms in pajamas' that hand out pastries to protesters. That probably terrifies poor Johnson.

[Estragon]

Yeah they arrested a lady in a banana costume playing a clarinet on Sunday, allegedly for assault. The video is horrendous. She’ll never be convicted— the officers ran into her— but the arbitrary arrests are kind of the point at this stage.

[Malika la Maize]

Mike has a literal pact with his son to monitor each others social media to police possible porn.

These people are deeply weird.

[Martinned]

Makes you wonder how they use Twitter, because that's literally one of the two things left on Twitter at this point. It's far right bots and porn bots.

[Estragon]

He is threatened by nudity, I guess? Anyways in most circumstances public nudity is protected by the Oregon Constitution (our first amendment has been interpreted more broadly than the US 1st amendment, there was an interesting case about that a few years back).

[Malika la Maize]

Fox News, along with ABC, CBS and NBC, did not sign the Defense Department’s press policy by Tuesday’s deadline, having earlier in the day denounced the new regulations in a joint statement that included CNN, which previously said it would not sign.

weekend.

“Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues,” the news networks wrote. “The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/14/fox-news-among-broadcasters-refusing-sign-pentagon-press-pledge/

[Bob from Ohio]

So DOD got all the journalists to volunteer to vacate the Pentagon. Oh noes, don't throw Pete into that brier patch!

[Sarcastr0]

I get the impression you don't want to live in a free and open country.

Maybe Argentina is more your speed?

[Bob from Ohio]

The lobbyists and disgruntled bureaucrats will still provide them leaks at the bars and they can transcribe from press releases off site just as well.

[Sarcastr0]

This is you doubling down on not wanting to live in a free and open country.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He already lives in Ohio. How much worse could it get for him?

[JohnSmith97]

It is now the downfall of the country if some leftist reporters are unable to randomly walk around the pentagon.

[Sarcastr0]

I got no problem with that. But that's hardly all the Pentagon requires now.

Do you think that's what NewsMax took issue with?

[David Nieporent]

And Fox News! Really, so far OANN is the only organization I've seen that has accepted the Pentagon's "rules," and OANN has less of an audience than your average college radio station.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe Argentina is more your speed?

He's MAGA; I think you meant Russia.

[Sarcastr0]

Just based on this commentariat as a barometer, Russia is out these days, and Latin American strongmen who pay lip service to libertarianism are the new hotness.

[Commenter_XY]

And....horror of horrors. The Pentagon actually had the temerity to suggest journolists not be allowed to wander through the halls, unescorted. So terrible!

End of Republic stuff here. /sarc

The squeals are from the reporters who lost their sources.

[Sarcastr0]

I was surprised that they didn't need an escort, but that seems to be the case:
https://www.war.gov/Resources/For-the-Media/

Access controlled federal buildings generally don't have such a policy.

I don't much care for most of this press clampdown by our increasingly paranoid and petty SecDef, but I got no issue with the escort thing; doesn't seem an issue with the press in general.

[Sarcastr0]

I note that a popular source around here - The Federalist - has bent the knee.

When you're more of a tool than NewsMax...

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump said on Tuesday that Washington’s $20 billion bailout for Argentina comes with strings attached — namely, that the ruling party of his ally, President Javier Milei of Argentina, must prevail in the country’s legislative elections this month.

“If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House, where he was meeting with Mr. Milei. Just minutes earlier, Mr. Trump had denied the economic lifeline was meant to help Mr. Milei’s party in the elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/us/politics/trump-argentina-leader-bailout.html

[hobie]

I guess we shall see if the Argentine people want to be made MAGA's bitch for a mere 20B Shekels. Although, they could use the dough to prop up their soybean industry

[DDHarriman]

^^^
no leftwing antisemitism here folks

[SRG2]

Why should $20bn go to Argentina in the first place, strings or no strings?

[DDHarriman]

bitch for a mere 20B Shekels.

Don't twist out of your sick antisemitism.

[SRG2]

Please reply to the right person, thanks.

[Frank Drackman]

Please suck a Schlong, thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you're confusing him with Simon P, who after a long comment decrying the quality and lack of civility in the comments closed by telling everyone to "go fuck themselves".

[DDHarriman]

Please stay on topic and not derail this important discussion.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good.

[Michael P]

Alec Baldwin crashed his wife's SUV recently, blaming the collision on a garbage truck the size of a "whale" allegedly cutting him off. The garbage truck has a dashcam that makes the situation look rather different:

https://x.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1978119883293331815

It looks to me like he was trying to pass the truck on the right, by driving dangerously fast. In a shoulder or parking lane. The truck looked like it was pulling over, either to let him pass or to pick up trash.

[ThePublius]

I didn't think it would take long for Baldwin's tale to crumble. It sounded like something some high school kid would say. 'Garbage truck big as an elephant came out of nowhere.' Right. He's such an arrogant, entitled asshole.

[DDHarriman]

While I can't stand the guy, I have to admit his Comedy Central Roast was hilarious -- if you like that sort of content.

[Malika la Maize]

I think he’s a rotten guy personally but a good guy publicly.

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense Mitch & Murray asked him to give a Pep Talk to some loser Salesmen and he was running late.

[John F. Carr]

My favorite Boston driving moment had a car going on the sidewalk on the left side of the street to avoid oncoming traffic after attempting an unsafe pass of a garbage truck. As far as I could tell all vehicles exited the scene without damage.

This happened a few years before an appropriate movie quote: "I'm not even mad. That's amazing."

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense Mitch & Murray asked him to give a Pep Talk to some loser Salesmen and he was running late.

[Commenter_XY]

Alec Baldwin has poor impulse control and bad judgment.

[Malika la Maize]

So I took a trip south into the Old Dominion and saw a funny thing. GOP signs said “Winsome Reid Mirayes.”

The latter two are the last names of their statewide candidates, the former the first name. I think the GOP is trying to bury the fact that “Winsome” dares have a hyphenated last name (Earle-Sears).

[DDHarriman]

No, it's even more nefarious!! They hate black people so much THEY ONLY USE THEIR FIRST NAMES!!!

It's disrespect because she's black. Or, maybe she isn't authentically black because she's not liberal, so you can't disrespect an Uncle Tom. amiright?

you've uncovered a big mystery, Scoob.

[Malika la Maize]

I notice no one offers an explanation as to why they refer to her by her first name but the others on the ticket by their last name.

[Mr. Bumble]

Winsome is such a winsome name.

[Frank Drackman]

I like her more outgoing sister "Getsome"

[Michael P]

I guess idiots can't understand that using fewer letters means the text can be bigger and therefore easier to read at a distance.

The VA GOP would probably do the same for Miyares if "Jason" wasn't such a common first name.

[apedad]

I'm happy to predict that the Great State of Northern Virginia (and those lesser regions) will be electing Abigail Spanberger for Governor.

Last Friday, Trump even declined to back Winsome Earle-Sears while praising Attorney General Jason Miyares and (current Governor) Youngkin.

[DDHarriman]

No way VA Democrats are gonna vote for a black. They got a strong slavery tradition.

[apedad]

No way VA Democrats are gonna vote for a Republican.

FTFY

[DDHarriman]

a "black Republican"

FTFY

[apedad]

You might know that the Democrat Attorney General candidate (Jay Jones) is also black, so either way, we'll have a black AG.

Now Jones is not a good candidate and has a scandal about comments he made in 2022.

Jones said if he were given two bullets and had to decide who to shoot between Nazi Germany’s dictator Adolf Hitler, Cambodia’s dictator Pol Pot and then-state House Speaker Todd Gilbert, “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”

“Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” he added.

I'm leaning on not voting for the AG either way in a tight race.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was a bit more to it than the two bullets remark. Considerably more, actually. It went on over an extended period, so it wasn't like it was just a momentary brain fart.

What Did Jay Jones Say? Read Text Messages in Full

Jay: "If those guys die before me I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves. Sent them out awash in something."

Coyner responds, "Jay Jones"

Back to, Jay:

"Three people, two bullets.
Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot.
Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.
Spoiler: Put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time."

Coyner: "Jay. Please stop"

Jay: "Lol Ok, ok"

Coyner: "It really bothers me when you talk about hurting people or wishing death on them. You weren't simply asking questions and you know it." [Was this a regular thing???]

Jay: "I genuinely was.
I wasn't attacking you, I was trying to understand your logic."

Coyner: "You weren't trying to understand.
You were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children would die."

Jay: "Yes, I've told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy."

Coyner: "There isn't.
I point blank asked you more than three times.
And you dug in that you meant it.
I honestly am questioning a lot today."

Jay: "I mean I do think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they're breeding little fascists? Yes"

Add that to his record of reckless driving, 116mph on the highway, and you have a picture of somebody who simply doesn't have much in the way of impulse control.

[Malika la Maize]

I agree. He’s slightly worse in that regard than the current GOP President.

[wvattorney13]

That's what struck me about the exchange. It wasn't a drunken private text between buddies where he blurted out something that in hindsight he shouldn't have said.

He texted the wrong person, was chastised for what he said, had the opportunity to clarify or take it back, but he just doubled down on it to a political opponent.

[DDHarriman]

Well, that Jones guy will win for sure. He's running on a platform of murdering conservative children, and there's one thing we know for sure, all those Democrat bureaucrats and ex-bureaucrats in NOVA are foaming at the mouth for the blood of conservatives and their children.

[Malika la Maize]

Hi Lex.

[DDHarriman]

Shaggy and crew are on the case!

[santamonica811]

I was wondering what happened to Lex.

Mystery solved.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“No way VA Democrats are gonna vote for a black.”

They voted for a guy in blackface.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You never know what political signs might turn up around the Old Dominion. Years ago I ventured toward its southern border, where just on the other side I encountered what I was certain was satire: a campaign sign for sheriff, touting candidate Porcius Crank.

But no, it turned out to be Porcius Festus Crank. He was a scion of the long-influential Crank clan, of southern Virginia and eastern North Carolina. I never heard how the election turned out for him.

Did you know that, "Sic Semper Tyrannis," means, "Get off my neck!" Check out the state seal of Virginia to see why.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm pretty sure it means "thus to tyrants".

[apedad]

Actually, "thus always to tyrants" but I'm pretty sure SL was being sarcastic.

[Mr. Bumble]

It means whatever I want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
H/T H. Dumpty.

[apedad]

Yes, we're accustomed to your way of thinking.

[wvattorney13]

I thought it meant "Make America Great Again"

[Ska]

I can't help but immediately think about Twin Peaks when I hear her name.

[Life of Brian]

I think the GOP is trying to bury the fact that “Winsome” dares have a hyphenated last name (Earle-Sears).

Or maybe it's just a name recognition thing. The driver of the recent hyphenation is actually a bit of a puzzler -- she's been known as Winsome Sears her entire political career and Earle is/was her middle name. They've been married for nearly 4 decades.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its like both Kerry and Edwards bringing up Cheney's lesbian daughter way back in 2004.

They think all GOP voters are deplorables.

[Sarcastr0]

Then it sure is weird how the posters around here who say they can't live in the same country as the other side are the MAGA ones.

I've got friends and coworkers who voted for Trump, and would again.
It's easy not to talk politics, if you're not brain poisoned.

Your take on the attitude of the other side remains more projection than reality.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I've got friends and coworkers who voted for Trump,"

Some of your best friends are Negroes, right?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you know why that's a cliche and how people deploy it.

And I note you didn't answer my point about the commentariat around here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"note"

I have to work sometime, answering all your inane comments is a lot of work!

[wvattorney13]

As a side note, I'm not sure why "I have many black friends" is such a joke, almost a meme, that suggests that you are a racist.

If you, indeed, have many black friends, isn't that a good data point to show that you at least are not terribly racist?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its almost always not true. Like him having lots of MAGA friends.

[Sarcastr0]

You could Google it, you know.

It's what tends to follow 'I have many black friends' that turned it into a racist cliche.

[Life of Brian]

It's what tends to follow 'I have many black friends' that turned it into a racist cliche.

See my Wikipedia link below, which treats the phrase on its own merits.

You may be confusing it with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_racist,_but...

[Sarcastr0]

From your link, you're furiously agreeing with me.

[Life of Brian]

Which link? As I said, I provided the above link thinking that's what you might have been thinking about rather than the below link that bears no resemblance to what you said.

[Life of Brian]

If you, indeed, have many black friends, isn't that a good data point to show that you at least are not terribly racist?

Indeed it is, in a rational universe. But in this one, saying it these days nearly automatically earns the scornful, circular rejoinder that feeling the need to say it just shows even more clearly that you're actually racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_racist,_I_have_black_friends

[David Nieporent]

As a side note, I'm not sure why "I have many black friends" is such a joke, almost a meme, that suggests that you are a racist.

Because it's the first part of a joke without the punchline. The original joke had two rich old white people talking, and one of them saying, "I can't be a racist; I have lots of black friends," and the other one says, "Really? Who?" And the first one says, "My gardener, my driver…"

At the risk of explaining a joke, the humor was that the guy was so out of touch that he considered his servants/employees to be his "friends," and he was so insulated that he didn't know any other black people.

[Life of Brian]

Because it's the first part of a joke without the punchline.

You have a link for that joke, perhaps? I spent most of the 70s and 80s in an area even whiter than your current digs, and never heard that one. Nor is it coming up in multiple search engines, and Grok isn't providing any actual sources either. The Wikipedia article links to some 10-20 year old "research" on what people ackshully mean when they say that, and doesn't breathe a word about a joke.

[bernard11]

Actually, I think this originated as "Some of my best friends are Jews," which was generally followed by, "but...."

IOW, it's a transparent cover for a bigoted remark.

[Life of Brian]

I've got friends and coworkers who voted for Trump, and would again.
It's easy not to talk politics, if you're not brain poisoned.

If you don't talk politics, how do you know they voted for Trump and would again?

[Sarcastr0]

Various ways.

First, no politics doesn’t mean zero things come up. Just that we don’t dwell.
But also there are events they attend. Stuff on display at their house.

Small talk can tell a lot over time.

[Bob from Ohio]

So you spy on them. Interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

Unsurprised Bob's not familiar with small talk, or dinner parties.

[Commenter_XY]

Looking for a neighborhood watch position?

[Life of Brian]

First, no politics doesn’t mean zero things come up.

You can imagine the wave of relief and empowerment sweeping over a large segment of the population from learning that "no" does not indeed mean no, but "ok, but just don't overdo it."

[Sarcastr0]

Someone says something political, it's pretty easy not to engage in debate, since they also aren't here for that.

I feel like a lot of people here don't talk to humans outside of the Internet very much.

[Life of Brian]

Someone says something political, it's pretty easy not to engage in debate, since they also aren't here for that.

1. *whoosh*
2. It's readily believable that people spontaneously confess to being a deplorable in many areas of the country, but not yours.
3. Even if 2 is wrong, they're definitely smart enough to know that just bringing it up is more than likely going to result in debate if not worse.

I feel like a lot of people here don't talk to humans outside of the Internet very much.

I feel like most folks here are not even close to that naive or forgetful. Here is just one of many, many examples where lefties were instructed to shout down or even disown their own family members over voting for Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

I know it's a shock to you that the DC metro area contains conservatives, and that some of them even work as civil servants.

But your pinched worldview isn't my problem.

just bringing it up is more than likely going to result in debate if not worse.
Says a lot about you and your lack of chill. I'm not that kind of confrontational with my coworkers and D&D friends.

Yeah, there are leftists who don't have that kind of chill. They don't come around here. And they are no excuse for you to be that kind person yourself, much less insist I gotta be like that.

The amount of MAGA telling me I gotta be more of a violent asshole than I appear is really on the rise.

[Life of Brian]

I know it's a shock to you that the DC metro area contains conservatives

I know, I know -- I should trust you on this rather than my lying eyes. But hey -- 6.5% IS NOT ZERO, amirite?

Says a lot about you and your lack of chill.

Man, you twist things for a hobby. I'm one of the ones who goes out of their way to say nothing as I listen to the constant stream of sharp-elbowed Team Blue barbs around me, both because it's impolite and because I have no particular desire to wade into a buzzsaw.

Yeah, there are leftists who don't have that kind of chill. They don't come around here.

Again, you're asking me to believe this crowd just doesn't exist. Give it up -- I'm not buying the swampland.

The amount of MAGA telling me I gotta be more of a violent asshole than I appear

With this whopper being case in point, I think most if not all folks here would be overjoyed if you were less of a mendacious boor.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I said DC metro area.

2. "I listen to the constant stream of sharp-elbowed Team Blue barbs" does not sound like you're particularly chill. Smoldering resentment is not chill just because you wait to come here to explode about it.

3. No, I don't think Chuck Schumer is one of the commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Life of Brian]

1. OK, so maybe ~20%. That changes EVERYTHING.

2. I really do hate to disappoint you and your preplanned narrative about me, but there's nothing remotely "explosive" about calling a spade a spade, nor is it anything like "smoldering" to opt for maturity and discretion when surrounded by people who actually do speak in person as they do on Twitter. Do keep on trying, though.

3. My bad, apparently -- I took the "here" in "Yeah, there are leftists who don't have that kind of chill. They don't come around here" to be the DC area. But there are plenty of non-chill lefties in this forum, so your pivot doesn't make sense either. (I'm sure you'll come back with some wonky definition of "chill" to try to square that circle, but remember it'll somehow have to include the lefty hotheads and exclude me so best of luck threading that needle.)

[Sarcastr0]

1. Yes, one in five is pretty different from 1 in 20!

2. You seem really angry at all these libs talking libbishly at you. For whatever reason, I don't have the same issue when right wing stuff comes up.
Neither of us is confrontational; one of us can't forget about it.

3. Lefties that come to reason.com are definitionally okay dealing with conservatives. Doesn't mean they all have conservative friends, but it does mean they can handle people disagreeing with them.
The nonliberals around here have plenty who don't do so well with disagreement.

[Life of Brian]

I'll skip the sorry SarcPsych, but this bit is ridiculous enough to flag:

Lefties that come to reason.com are definitionally okay dealing with conservatives. . . . The nonliberals around here have plenty who don't do so well with disagreement.

I'm sure you wrote this with some sort of cutesy take in mind on "definitionally okay," but sans word games this is nothing more than waving your wishful wand and declaring it so.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm reading the comments on this here blog and the ones that talk about killing the opposition, or the opposition wanting to kill them, or secession are all on the right.

So are the ones about the Jews being evil, for that matter.

And the ones about blacks being predisposed to criminality.

Not saying none of those on the left here got issues, but trends are trends.

[Life of Brian]

I'm reading the comments on this here blog and the ones that talk about killing the opposition, or the opposition wanting to kill them, or secession are all on the right.

Um, setting aside the I'm-too-clever-to-explicitly-say-it-out-loud faction, the most obvious example here is Lathrop. And don't make me go dig for all the "get the COVID vax or separate from society" posts.

So are the ones about the Jews being evil, for that matter.

I'm sure you're banking on some very narrow definition on this one -- there are plenty of anti-Israel lefties around here.

And the ones about blacks being predisposed to criminality.

Dunno exactly which nut you're picking on this last of your cherry-picked examples, but I'm sure it's flagrant enough to balance out all the rest of your attempt at a self-fulfilling worldview.

I mean, I could make a mile-long list of stuff like "only the left says anyone that uses the numbers 1, 4, 8 and 8 in any context is a Hitler fanboi," but that doesn't really say anything meaningful either.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And the ones about blacks being predisposed to criminality."

That's almost as bad as saying that black voters are disabled.

[DDHarriman]

Can someone link the video of Obama and other prominent Democrats decrying the deployment of tens of thousands heavily armed National Guard troops against US citizens for the two months after J6 in Washington DC?

[Martinned]

Was the US government not supposed to resist an insurrection?

Anyway, speaking of January 6, remind me: Who was president at the time?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115359345947837427

[SRG2]

The cultists simultaneously believe that Pelosi controlled the DC NG and that Trump has unlimited authority to deploy the NG wherever he wants.

[DDHarriman]

Of course, you're using the bluesky version of alt-facts to make your claim.

Good one.

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/officers-and-organizations/sergeant-at-arms

The Sergeant at Arms reports directly to her. Pay special attention to this part:

The Sergeant at Arms reviews and implements all issues relating to the safety and security of Members of Congress and the Capitol complex. The Sergeant at Arms also coordinates extensively with the U.S. Capitol Police and various intelligence agencies to assess threats against Members of Congress and the Capitol complex.

Given these new-to-you facts, did Pelosi have any authority, what-so-ever, over the security of Congress?

[Michael P]

Their brains are made of poeslaw: it's impossible to tell whether they don't understand that the Capitol Police and National Guard are different things (... and why), or whether they're merely pretending not to for some astonishingly stupid tactical reason.

[SRG2]

I recall cultists claiming that Pelosi had control of the NG - for whjch they were roundly and rightly mocked.

It seems both you and DDH suffer from the same cognitive dysfunction.

[Michael P]

Until an actual emergency occurs, the NG needs permission to deploy at the Capitol, and Paul Irving vetoed that because he said Nancy Pelosi would "never go for it". He might have been wrong, but he did veto NG deployment as her agent.

Did Pelosi ever say that Irving was wrong, and that Donald Trump was right to recommend the presence of the National Guard to ensure order?

[DDHarriman]

More new-to-them facts.

They never knew of this detail, only the narrative. The narrative is their reality, it's their universe. Nothing exists outside, all exists inside of it.

[David Nieporent]

Until an actual emergency occurs, the NG needs permission to deploy at the Capitol,

Utterly false. Why do you people lie like this? Unlike in the states, where governors control their respective state National Guards, POTUS is the sole commander of the DC National Guard. Nobody has any power to "veto" his deployment orders in DC.

Also, not really clear how you think "until an actual emergency exists" helps the case for Trump on J6.

[Life of Brian]

POTUS is the sole commander of the DC National Guard. Nobody has any power to "veto" his deployment orders in DC.

How in the world can you type with your fingers crossed? He was flatly vetoed on Jan 6, and there's an active lawsuit by DC to enjoin Trump's recent deployment order there.

[David Nieporent]

The claim that the Pentagon ignored Trump's orders is a flat out lie by Loudermilk — no order by Trump to protect the Capitol was given — and in any case "The Pentagon ignored Trump's orders" is utterly unrelated to the claim Michael P made.

And the fact that Trump did in fact send NG troops to DC such that DC felt the need to sue to try to stop it (note that DC has not been successful) refutes the idea that Trump couldn't deploy the NG on J6.

[Life of Brian]

The claim that the Pentagon ignored Trump's orders is a flat out lie by Loudermilk

The relevant quotes on the linked slide are from Mark Milley and Chris Miller. Are they lying as well?

(note that DC has not been successful)

You mean DC didn't get one of those immediate TROs that all the cool judges are doing. The case hasn't been thrown out in the slightest, and the PI briefing will be done tomorrow. Skimming DC's PI motion, they seem to think they have rather extensive power to "veto" Trump's deployment order in DC.

[David Nieporent]

The relevant quotes on the linked slide are from Mark Milley and Chris Miller. Are they lying as well?

No. They're just not saying what Loudermilk claims. The actual testimony — not a "slide" — was that Trump asked — not gave an order — in the days leading up to J6 whether troops would be needed to protect his rally. (As is the case now, Trump was obsessed with the imaginary antifa boogeyman that he thought was going to attack his supporters.) Trump did not even ask, let alone order, National Guard troops to protect the Capitol from his supporters.

[Life of Brian]

You're doing that thing you do. Here are the two exact quotes from Milley about what Trump said to him:

1. "Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event."

2. "Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe."

Are you claiming Milley did not in fact say those words, or are you playing some sort of angel-pinhead game that those words somehow did not rise to the level of an "order"?

[David Nieporent]

I will repeat exactly what I said: those were not orders, and in any case were about protecting Trump's supporters from antifa, not about protecting the Capitol from Trump's supporters.

[Life of Brian]

OK, so you are playing games. What precise combination of words in your view is required to emerge from the mouth of the President of the United States of America to constitute an order? Remember, whatever you pick must be applied across the board to all presidents.

And your "just for the speech" contention is just silly, since ex ante that was the most likely locus of any protests. If any NG actually had been deployed there as ordered, they could have been quickly shifted to the Capitol when things got sticky there.

[Michael P]

News flash for DaMN liars: The President is not a king, and cannot order the DC National Guard to occupy the Capitol in violation of Congress's authority. Some people (on the left) even assert that existing law prohibit the President from using the DC National Guard in this kind of non-emergency case: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-attorney-general-sues-block-national-guard-deployment-trump-president-lawsuit-schwalb-illegal-home-rule-act-posse-comitatus-federal-law-defense-local-autonomy-military-occupation-public-safety-economy-impacts-crime-residents

[ducksalad]

LoB, MP - Just so there's no confusion here, let's skip what the hypocrites or alleged hypocrites say and ask what YOU think.

Suppose there factually is a riot, whether it's BLM, anti-ICE, or J6.
Suppose only the laws on the books are used, but Trump can make any declaration or utterance he wants to.
Suppose you are the 5th vote on the Supreme Court.

A governor does not want to deploy the state's national guard, and Trump does. Who do YOU think wins?

Somebody in the DC chain of command does not want to deploy the district's national guard, and Trump does. Who do YOU think wins?

[Life of Brian]

I think it's at least a closer call if there are no federal interests at risk from the riot. Assuming for now there are, and if I'm reading your conditions correctly,* I'm struggling to understand the scenario where the governor/DC chain of command isn't the evil diabolical overlord in the equation for effectively demanding the riot be allowed to continue rather than leveraging all available resources to address it. It doesn't seem like a particularly close call to me, but let me know if I've misread something.

* The one I'm least sure about is: "Suppose only the laws on the books are used, but Trump can make any declaration or utterance he wants to." For my response, I took that to mean that Trump can declare the riot as needing NG assistance, and the laws on the books wouldn't prohibit that. Let me know if that's far enough off to matter.

[David Nieporent]

Some people (on the left) even assert that existing law prohibit the President from using the DC National Guard in this kind of non-emergency case:

Setting aside everything else wrong with what you said, WTF are you talking about "non-emergency case"? Why are you talking about whether the president can use the NG to pick up litter? We're talking about J6.

[Michael P]

DaMN, SRG2 was pushing a dishonest claim based on a misrepresentation of facts about why the NG wasn't deployed at the Capitol BEFORE the riot. The only emergency at that time was that Democrats had corrupted election processes.

[SRG2]

Michael P: My observation was no t about whether Trump could or couldn't deploy the NG but about what cultists claimed. This was true and hence not dishonest. Your post is hence dishonest.

FWIW there is absolutely no fucking way that any of the cultists here would have disapproved of Trump's deploying the NG at the Capitol had it been a left-wing mob.

The only emergency at that time was that Democrats had corrupted election processes.

And you whine about others being dishonest.

[SRG2]

You can cite all the protocols you like. I am talking about what cultists claimed, not what reality is - the two are oft unrelated.

[Michael P]

You should stop projecting your cult mindset onto others. Your delusions and confused misrepresentations only make you sound like a crank.

[DDHarriman]

Can speak to your outie? Your innie only lives in the narrative and has no understanding of human reality.

[David Nieporent]

The Sergeant at Arms — by which you mean the House Sergeant at Arms, a likely deliberate omission on your part to obscure — is irrelevant to this discussion. The House Sergeant at Arms (who works for the House, not Pelosi personally) makes up one third — i.e., a minority — of the board that oversees the Capitol Police. The board does not issue orders to the Capitol Police (the police chief does), and even if it did, Pelosi couldn't control said orders. (The other two thirds of said board are the Senate Sergeant at Arms, which reported to the then-Mitch McConnell led senate, and the Architect of the Capitol, appointed before 2024 by POTUS (i.e., Trump.))

[Armchair]

There was no insurrection.

[Sarcastr0]

But there is one in Chicago and Portland!

What a joke.

[JohnSmith97]

We know.. in your mind the left can never commit a crime. Ever.
Everything is caused by (R), even in places that have been (D) for decades.

[Sarcastr0]

You're nowhere near on topic.

[Mike Breen]

Would like to see one of the commentators here pick up coverage of the OpenAI copyright litigation in the Southern District if New York. Sounds like things are getting interesting in the spoliation department.

[Nelson]

Another non-political topic. In honor of Commenter XY’s recipe posts, I ask this: what’s your favorite dish?

If you want to make it even more interesting, give us the best single meal you’ve ever had and where you had it.

My favorite dish is an eggplant parm sub. Paper-thin slices of eggplant very lightly breaded on a good sub roll (dense with a good chewy crust, none of that soft, airy nonsense) with the cheese melted under a salamander so the bread gets ever-so-slightly toasted.

The best meal I’ve ever had was at Felidia’s in New York, Lidia Bastianich’s original restaurant (now closed). It was house-made squid ink pappardelle pasta in a sage brown butter sauce. Such a simple dish, but done perfectly with the pasta nicely al dente and the butter browned to the edge of burning so the nutty flavor was deep and prominent. Dear God, it was delicious.

[ThePublius]

My favorite was an individual filet mignon beef Wellington. It was so incredibly good! I have yet to find it again, either in that original restaurant, or anywhere else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Every year for Christmas dinner I try to cook something new and really out there, and last year it was beef Wellington. It's not quite as complicated to make as you might think, and the individual size is even easier, so you might try it yourself.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/282602/chef-johns-individual-beef-wellingtons/

Still haven't decided what to make for Christmas this year. I'm thinking maybe Beef Bourguignon made with beef short ribs.

[Ridgeway]

Short ribs is the way to go on Boeuf Bourg, but dont forget to skim some of the fat.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you get the tenderloin from Costco and excise the chateaubriand, you can cook some legit filet mignon a day or two before.

Totally worth it.

[ducksalad]

My mom used to make those for fancy dinner parties (although as kids we only got the leftovers). Did the one you had have that mushroom pate layer between the filet and the crust?

[Brett Bellmore]

The duxelle? Yeah.

My mom and dad used to make this rolled roast filled with onions and olives, and cooked in wine. They claimed that the recipe was from the Galloping Gourmet, and required that you drink a glass of wine at each step, so that you were quite drunk by the time it was in the oven.

I've had no luck tracking down the recipe, if anybody has any leads I'd appreciate it.

[Bwaaah]

I only know the drinking part. Goes well with anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

My absolute favorite dish is kind of plebeian: Shrimp egg foo young, with that brown gravy Chinese restaurants specialize in, that's got so much MSG you're risking a headache eating it. I just LOVE that stuff!

But the single best meal I ever had was when we had to travel to Atlanta on a holiday, and surprisingly didn't have trouble finding a last minute room at the Omni at Centennial park. It was even reasonably priced! We went to the hotel restaurant for dinner, and you could have rolled a hand grenade into there and had no casualties.

The bored out of his skull head chef came out personally to serve us our broiled scallops and chat. Seems somebody, since fired, had really screwed up reservations, and the hotel was practically empty.

I have literally never had scallops that good, before or since. They were, like, the Platonic ideal of broiled scallops. I swear they must have just been delivered straight off the boat, and I know they were 30 seconds off the grill.

[Malika la Maize]

I have a recent beef about dishes featuring really big shrimp. They are weirdly chewy. Shrimp are a synonym for small for a reason! Serve small shrimp!

Also, cut the tails off, you lazy chefs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something we can agree on, although I don't mind the tails. Makes a nice handle when dipping in sauce.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on the dish, I suppose. The really big ones work well on the grill.

[Frank Drackman]

Shrimp? Yucko, you're pretty much eating Ocean Roaches, Shrimp, Lobster, Crawfish, it's the one food I have no trouble keeping away from. (OK, now Pulled Pork, Bacon, Country Ham???? like Barry Hussein with his Smoking,
it's a "Work in Progress"

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Amen on the tails. If the dish is covered in sauce, I'd rather not have to put my fingers in it.

[DDHarriman]

Back in the end of June my family and I were in Venice for a wedding and we had dinner out on the canals one of the evenings and chef came out and prepared our dish table side. He even processed the lobsters table side.

It was something special. One of my favorite dinner memories.

[DDHarriman]

FYI, I've recently picked up a brand sponsorship and I am getting paid per 'and'.

[Harvey Mosley]

You missed a couple of opportunities in that last post 🙂

[hobie]

Egg foo young? Really, Brett? That American abomination? I thought you were more refined than that. But I suppose the palate wants what it wants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I can cook perfectly authentic Chinese food, and do, (Red cooked pork, yum!) but childhood favorites stick with you.

[Frank Drackman]

Not everyone enjoys the Kum of Sum Yung Gai

[hobie]

The best dish I make for myself is braised short ribs on - yep - pappardelle pasta: brown the meat, sweat the mire poix. Then I go in for the kill: tomato paste, anchovy paste, king oyster mushroom and my homemade demi glace.

I think the best restaurant meal I ever had would be 15 years ago in Paris Las Vegas. The iced seafood tower, plates taken away covered by a table cloth, tornadoes Rossini, creme brulee

[Brett Bellmore]

Oyster sauce works in that dish, too, in place of the anchovy paste. I swear by the stuff, but you have to get the real thing, not "oyster flavored sauce". We buy ours in bulk at an Asian grocery that supplies local restaurants.

[Frank Drackman]

Brave man, whoever first saw an Oyster and thought, "I've got to eat THAT!"

Frank

[Bwaaah]

And whoever first took a whiff of ethanol and said, "I've got to drink THAT!"

These are our pioneers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Next up; best sex you ever had and where you had it.

[Bunny495]

For me back in the 1960s. But conventional wisdom is if you can remember what you did in the 60s you were not doing it right.

[Frank Drackman]

About 5 minutes ago, Rosey Palms and her 5 sisters, Holiday Inn Express (might want to check the towels) it's my version of the "Morning Constitutional", and has health benefits, but you gotta alternate hands or you end up looking like Guillermo Vilas (1970's Lefty Tennis Player, my second favorite after Connors, (and later McEnroe, another lefty btw) had YUGE (HT "45/47") Left forearm/biceps, while his Right arm was a withered vestigial appendage (I would say like Bob Dole, but that would be cruel)
Seriously, you gotta flush the toxins out of the Prostrate, you've got to! (HT C. Kramer)
Oh wait a minute.......
You said "Best you ever had"
Well in the words of that Great Songster Stephen Sills
"Love the one you're with"

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Taking advantage of some unexpected free time to make a Smörgåstårta

My favorite dish is unadorned salmon.

[Frank Drackman]

I like just cheap grocery store brand hotdogs, and not the All-Beef, the Pork/Chicken blends.
I will splurge for the Top Sliced Bun, and only condom-mint is a little Salt (they don't put enough in them) and some Texas Pete.
OK, I get that Texas Pete is made from Tomatoes (and in North Carolina, not Texas) it's not Ketchup
No Ketchup, Never, Ever, Ever
I'll convert to Islam, cut off my Schlong and become a Fairy, and start watching Soccer before I put Ketchup on a Hot Dog.

Frank

[SRG2]

We kinda overlap. I very much like eggplant parm but not on a sub, and mine is rich and savoury and cooked for a long time so the eggplant skin gets crispy.

I liked Felidia - it was just along from my old apartment, but I never ate anything there that improved on the average meals I'd eaten in Rome or Milan.

[Bunny495]

Back when my family still lived in the Florida Keys my mother had a rule that the only seafood I could bring into the house was lobster and Hog fish. Both are notorious for often being overcooked. This was back in the 1960s when it was still legal to eat turtles. Again a dish that depends more on how it is processed (read butchered) but is also not an easy dish to prepare. My mother made breaded turtle steak with a garlic breading that you could cut with a fork and was a welcome but rare treat.

As for restaurants back then we could afford to go to Joe's Stone Crab in Miami. Sad to say it's prices are well over $US100 a plate for starters. But, as Yogi famously said 'that place is so crowded that no one goes there anymore'.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Here on Hatteras Island they made turtle hash. Half of a good size turtle cubed, potatoes, onions, and season to taste. They also drank yaupon tea, so their taste buds were probably all burned out.

[Swede425]

Blueberry Blintzes.
Lingonberry Blintzes are also acceptable.
My Finnish grandmother (of Swedish extraction) made them for us whenever we visited Minnesota.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your favorite dish?"

Sydney Sweeney right now.

[ducksalad]

Favorite plate: Ribeye Tampiquena.

Best single meal at La Fogata in Reynosa, Tamps. Food was outstanding and I've never experienced service that good. Some of the other clientele appeared to be narcotraficantes. One that looked and dressed like Tuco out of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was sitting alone at a circular table meant for eight people, surrounded by a swarm of waiters in formal attire and at least ten different plates in front of him. I had cabrito al carbon, my wife had camarones al tequila (flambe). Did happen to accidentally glimpse the maitre d behind the curtains carefully dimming the house lights right before they lit my wife's dish.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Braised pork with preserved vegetables at the Red Tiger Dumpling House in Stony Brook, NY. Their soup dumplings are amazing as well.

[Commenter_XY]

To honor the end of Sukkot, and to celebrate the return of the hostages, here is a recipe for a fig and honey cocktail, Nelson, courtesy of Commenter_XY.

I grow a few fig trees, and have a bumper crop this year.

https://toriavey.com/fig-and-honey-cocktail/

(ps...you can make it a little stronger, I did)

[bernard11]

Do you also have a vine? Then you're all set.

[Paladin_44]

Rack of Lamb, James Beard, as prepared at Windows on the World (Cellar in the Sky) in the early '80s. I requested the recipe and, to my surprise, several weeks later received faxed copies of the several recipes that actually made up this dish. Still have them tucked away and look forward to a special occasion to serve it again.

[Jmaie]

Thankfully, have been around too long to have a truly favorite dish or meal. But the best dish I’ve had in the last several years was the she-crab soup at The Bazaar (in the Waldorf Astoria in DC). Did the full tasting menu the night before, way too much food, but went back the next day just for the soup. And if I ever find myself anywhere within driving distance of DC, I will go back again. heck, I might find an excuse to fly in and have another bowl while I’m there.

[Jmaie]

If I'm cooking for a fancy occasion, braised short ribs is a go to main. With it I like to serve a cream of wild mushroom soup - always a hits due to being mainly concentrated chicken stock, butter and cream. I usually wait until after to mention that it works out to around 900 calories per cup. Joël Robuchon's mashed potatoes. Garlic bread a la The Smokehouse restaurant in Burbank behind what used to be Universal Studio's back lot. French bread drenched in garlic butter and Parmigiana, baked until dark in a 500F oven.

Hmm, noticing a trend and now I'm hungry ;<)

[apedad]

Justices Pass on Hearing Challenge to H-1B Spouses’ Work Permits

The US Supreme Court has declined to consider a bid by immigration opponents to invalidate employment authorization for spouses of certain temporary foreign workers in the US.

Save Jobs USA, which represents American-born IT workers, has waged a decade-long battle to overturn an Obama administration rule extending work permits to tens of thousands of H-4 visa holders. Those visas are granted to dependent family members of workers on H-1B specialty occupation visas, which are heavily used by the tech industry.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/justices-pass-on-hearing-challenge-to-h-1b-spouses-work-permits

Trump still put a $10,000 fee on the H-1B visas (which is being challenged too).

[John F. Carr]

He announced a fee. Has anybody been forced to pay it yet? The lawsuit came before any implementing regulations and I think it was premature.

[David Nieporent]

Trump's people must've been really torn on this one. On the one hand, this rule is pro-immigrant. But on the other, it's pro-executive authority. Trump ultimately decided to defend this rule and expansive executive authority.

[Bunny495]

Things like this may get worse before they get better. I am not sure just what the charges would be given that most LEOs enjoy significant protection from any charges.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jb-pritzker-looking-at-prosecuting-ice-agents-in-chicago/ar-AA1Os8MA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ASTS&cvid=ba016d5628fc4443baa1bda3990109d7&ei=33

[hobie]

This just in: Libertarian MAGA's in Volokh comment section suddenly and enthusiastically support qualified immunity

[DDHarriman]

hobie, no one thinks any federal agent should get a pass if they break the law.

Here is where we are different. My side doesn't think a federal agent who is lawfully exercising his authority should be prosecuted even if the policy they are enforcing is disagreeable politically.

Your side does.

[Martinned]

Tell me more about James Comey.

[DDHarriman]

Well, for starters, he perjured himself during Congressional testimony, he unlawfully absconded with classified materials, and then illegally leaked to the press.

Did you not read any of the charges? lol of course not.

[Martinned]

You're pathetic. If you were any further up your Great Leader's ass, you could chew his Big Macs for him.

[DDHarriman]

I'm pathetic because I believe Comey committed crimes? If you weren't such a fanatic, you could deduce criminal conduct too just from the publicly available information.

Being a reality denying fanatic is pathetic, Martinned. And that's you.

[Frank Drackman]

You're the one who kneels to an In-bred King (isn't the King Divine???)

[not guilty]

"Well, for starters, he perjured himself during Congressional testimony, he unlawfully absconded with classified materials, and then illegally leaked to the press."

Uh, no. Comey is not charged with any of those offenses in the two count indictment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.1.0_13.pdf

(He is charged with making a false statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), but perjury is a separate and distinct federal offense (prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1621), which the indictment does not charge.)

[David Nieporent]

That seems like a pointless distinction in casual conversation, but of course there's no evidence his testimony was a lie.

[not guilty]

And Comey in his September 30, 2020 testimony also did not utter the words attributed to him -- in quotation marks, no less -- in Count One of the indictment.

A perjury prosecution would have required the Government to prove that Comey under oath stated or subscribed any material matter which he did not then believe to be true. That is a subjective standard.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell me more about your (Divine) King's Corona.
What? I'm talking about his Crown.
You see his Crown much? Ever taste it? want to taste it? think about tasting it? how about just smelling it??
Could have been a Rodney Dangerfield joke,
"Just last week I went to a Mexican Gay Bar, I asked for a "Tall Boy Corona" they sent out a young guy named Julio!, I don't get no respect!!"

Frank

[SRG2]

No one thinks any federal agent should get a pass if they break the law.

Hahaha, good one!

[hobie]

I know! Where to begin?!

[DDHarriman]

You people are threatening federal agents for breaking your norms, not for breaking any laws.

A democrat government is out there threatening as much now.

[Martinned]

I assume they still support locking up Johnson and Pritzker, though.

[Poxigah146]

I would support locking up Pritzker, but feeding that fat fuck in prison will add to much to the deficit.

[Frank Drackman]

Vat a Country! Amurica, where even Death Row Prisoners are Morbidly Obese.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, most of them have twenty or thirty years to fatten up.

[Estragon]

“Fat fuck”

After having seen some of the GOP future stars involved in this young republican text chain— you might consider laying off the fat jokes?

Oh, I forgot, they’re all 6’3” 215lbs like Don, right?

[Bunny495]

There is a difference between support and acknowledging reality.

[DDHarriman]

Jay (Jones): "Yes, I've told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy."

And there you have it folks. This belief explains much of the horrific behavior we see by Democrats. They want single payer so friendly Federal bureaucrats can control everyone's literal life and death but can't get it, so what do they do? They pass Obamacare to ruin health insurance for everyone so they'll "feel pain personally and move on policy".

Student loans? Democrats nationalized them so they could make it worse and people will "feel pain personally and move on policy" to serve their goal of controlling your entire education.

They want to control your health and your mind so they can continue to use them as levers to make you "feel pain personally and move on policy".

Victim of a hurricane, but voted for Trump, Democrats at FEMA will make sure you "feel pain personally and move on policy".

---

This is not how real humans think. Only subhuman monsters.

[Malika la Maize]

This guy posting this as Trump fires people and cancels projects to make Democrats feel the shutdown is awesome.

[DDHarriman]

Why do you think our health insurance industry has gotten exponentially shittier after Obamacare passed?

I say it was intentional. It was always a submarine job to usher in single payer.

How about you? Do you think it was intentional sabotage, or do you think Democrats just have shitty health policies that don't work?

[wvattorney13]

I have no doubt it was intentional. Remember how the ACA was supposed to make health insurance much more affordable and open up these Adam Smith-like exchanges where you have a variety of health insurers competing for your business?

I have exactly 1 choice for providers. I have many available policies, but 1 company offering them.

Then the Dems expanded tax credits to people with all income levels. Even Jeff Bezos gets a tax credit. It expires at the end of the year, but they are shutting down the government to fight for it.

If/when they get it, what is the next step? You guessed it: Why have the government pay the middle man insurance company for essentially nothing? Have the government act as the insurer. Voila! Single payer healthcare.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think our health insurance industry has gotten exponentially shittier after Obamacare passed?

Why do you think our health insurance industry has gotten exponentially shittier?

[Mr. Bumble]

Because of too much government involvement starting with Medicare.

[David Nieporent]

Medicare, obviously, was not enacted by Obamacare.

But you misinterpreted my question anyway. My question was not what his explanation was for health insurance getting shittier. My question was what was his basis for thinking health insurance had gotten shittier.

[hobie]

'subhuman monsters'

You know how everything you accuse the libs of, from pedophilia to fascism to election stealing to antisemitism turns out to actually be MAGA?

Call me another name, DD. I want to know more about you

[DDHarriman]

White gentrifier?

I'm certainly not that... I don't do anything, that I can help, anyway, around the coloreds.

[hobie]

I've gentrified the hell out of my street. The very day I moved in two years ago, everyone on the street started fixing up their houses. When they saw that some fool white boy paid an unheard of price of $80k when all their houses were going for about $30k, they got on the bandwagon. And guess what? It worked. All the sprucing self-reinforced everyone's property values such that now most houses are commanding - and getting - around $130k. Because mine is a super mansion (in my own estimation), I'm expecting $200k should I ever decide to sell.

[DDHarriman]

You're like a regular White Prince! Look at you and all your blessings your Whiteness has bestowed upon the natives.

I'm so proud of you 'lil hobie. **tussles hair**

[Frank Drackman]

Until one day when Hobie mysteriously vanishes, when they ask one of the Neighborhood "Utes" what happened,
"Mistah Hobie?- he Dead"

[hobie]

I'll never forget the day I was given my N-Card. It was about 6 months into my stay. Homies be sitting on my porch at 10am smokin' and calling each other Nigga. And I say that I want to start saying nigga. They all look at me incredulously. And one says, 'Man, you a nigga now! You can say it all you want!'

I swear, my nigga chest swelled with nigga pride, and nigga tears filled my nigga eyes. I was IN!

[DDHarriman]

It's your most glorious day!

Some of my glorious days where obtaining my Ph.D., selling my startup, getting married to the love of my life, the births of my sons, oh how do I wish I was a Democrat so the pinnacle of my life could be hobknobbing in da hood and getting my 'nigga card' where I have permission from a bunch of niggas to say 'nigga' without getting violently assaulted and murdered for being a White who dare said 'nigga' without an official 'nigga card'!

Glory to you and your new 'nigga card'! You've achieved greatness. To climb to the top of the Democrat moral authority pile though, you have to become black, lesbian, crippled and trans yourself or your kids.

[Frank Drackman]

Only $200K??, I need to check that out, there's tool sheds in my area that cost more than that, and it's Georgia!

[Malika la Maize]

It’s Lex.

[DDHarriman]

Zoinks, Scoob, we got a mystery on our hands!

[Estragon]

Voltage!

[Sarcastr0]

It's kind of a shame how much engagement this shitlord is getting from the name change.

This guy has admitted to being the antisemite as Sartre describes him:

"I mostly comment on this board while I’m taking shit. I skim not study. I like to keep my inputs/outputs consistent. Lower cognitive load.
Read shit, take a shit, talk shit, reply to shit. I keep the big brain stuff for more important matters. Like buttering up your mom"

From Sartre:
"The anti-Semite has the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors."
-----------
Say what you will about Joe_dallas, he at least believes what he posts.

I encourage those who blocked his last incarnation to do the same again.

[Life of Brian]

So you're convinced he's the resurrection of JHBHBE? Y'all really need to get your vibezy paranoia theories in line.

[Sarcastr0]

He doesn't change up his style much, including the antisemitism.

[Estragon]

The rhetorical markers are all there. Plus this iteration said he used to take Loki seriously years ago. So there’s been at least 2 handles.

Blonde Jesus was clearly addicted to shit talking around here to the tune of dozens of posts a day. Lex, bravo Charlie, etc etc, all the same. Are you seriously suggesting these ostensibly discrete individuals left it all behind, got lives, and disappeared never to post again? It’s simple: voltage until grey boxing reaches a point that this individual is not getting the engagement needed to fuel the addiction. Change names, start again with 100% engagement, rinse and repeat. I sometimes wonder if the guy is actually Don Jr, given failson numero uno’s involvement with professional trolls like Ricky Vaughn.

Piss on our legs some more, Brian.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, you're clearly going to believe whatever you want to believe, but those handles don't have anything close to a coherent timeline. Just as one example, what are you suggesting was the handle for the 8ish months between BCD and JHBHBE?

[Estragon]

“8ish months between BCD and JHBHBE”

Ok, well show me your carefully constructed timeline first and then I can respond.

“believe whatever you want to believe”

Just as you are free to believe 14.88 is coincidence!

[Life of Brian]

You at least need a candidate that showed up around September 2023 and left around May 2024. And before we go any further, you should declare a major on whether you think Magnus Pilatus is in or out -- you didn't include him in your list, but a number of others have hung the "voltage" tag on him at the time. That will create some coherency problems either way, but we may as well shake out which set we're dealing with.

[Estragon]

“him in your list“

I think that particular handle is amply covered by “etc etc”. Even you identified that one yourself. So I think we’re done sea lioning here. Believe what you want.

[David Nieporent]

Just as one example, what are you suggesting was the handle for the 8ish months between BCD and JHBHBE?

Red Headed Pharaoh, the guy with multiple pretend degrees after his name…

[Sarcastr0]

LoB is increasingly standing alone in not being able to pick up on many unsubtle cues.

I wonder what bullshit he will demand next, lest he continue to ridiculously not believe what is obvious to everyone else?

[Life of Brian]

lest he continue to ridiculously not believe what is obvious to everyone else

Obviously paranoid clairvoyance, I suppose. You're running this entire worldview on vibez, feelz, and blind faith, to the exclusion of those pesky things known as "facts."

I'm heartbroken I can't just click off my brain and join you, but you already have plenty of good company so you'll just have to try to muddle along without me, K?

[Life of Brian]

Bzzzt, x2:

RedHeadedPharoh showed up in December 2024 and was still around here a few weeks ago.

Magnus showed up this February and went quiet just after the Kirk shooting.

So those don't fit y'all's theory at all. Next?

[David Nieporent]

Do you think people can't have more than one handle?

[Life of Brian]

I figured you'd try to squirm and pivot to a new theory. But for this one, you have to squeeze your eyes shut and believe in your heart of hearts that there's only One Icky Person out there running all these different overlapping accounts over the course of several years, rather than the Occam-approved notion that, most amazingly, more than one person over the course of several years has happened upon this board and taken it upon themselves to spend some time reminding the resident lefties how FOS they are.

[DDHarriman]

Letitia James not only has been lying on mortgage applications for 42 years, she's been harboring a fugitive for five years at her primary residence which she's been renting to her fugitive niece ever since she bought it as her primary residence.

Unbelievable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually quite believable. If you're not going to shelter your (grand) niece when she's a fugitive from the law, when ARE you going to shelter a fugitive from the law?

Kinda curious how her grand niece was making the rent, though.

Oh, wait, never mind: Turns out she has a criminal record in Virginia, too: Possession of burglary tools, grand larceny, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Racking up a lot of speeding tickets, too.

[DDHarriman]

Good thing she's a protected class. Where 'protected class' means "in the orbit of a powerful Democrat whose saving Democracy!"

[David Nieporent]

She has not been harboring anyone, and I've seen nothing that says she's actually a fugitive either. Also, she hasn't been renting it, but why stop at one lie when you can post several?

[Hugh]

Proposed; an essay, written and presented by someone with more skill and influence than me, entitled "The Stupidity of Originalism "

1. Point One: the use of originalist principles to justify the unitary executive theory, an outcome that, if held by the leading lights of the 1780s and 1790s, would have resulted in return to rule by George III, not rule by George Washington.

2. Point Two: the further corruption through "history and tradition" of originalism to conclude it is required that Americans be allowed to own unlimited weapons designed for modern warfare which result in thousands of unnecessary deaths each year.

[hobie]

I think Thomas is playing 4D old school with us by channeling the Code of Hammurabi, when neegroes ruled the middle east and justice was handed out differently depending on social status. That's his likely impetus for imposing a unitary king

[Frank Drackman]

You're falling for that Al Sharpton "We built the Pyramids" bit???
(OK, Reverend Al was right about the Greeks) Closest thing to a "Black Civilization" was Ethiopia.

[Commenter_XY]

Who can forget this Rev Al gem....

But resist we much. We must and we will much about that be committed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"an outcome that, if held by the leading lights of the 1780s and 1790s, would have resulted in return to rule by George III, not rule by George Washington."

You think unitary executive theory overrides the outcome of a revolution?

"the further corruption through "history and tradition" of originalism to conclude it is required that Americans be allowed to own unlimited weapons designed for modern warfare which result in thousands of unnecessary deaths each year."

Look, I get that you think the 2nd amendment is a bad idea on policy grounds. When you can get enough people to agree with you about that to repeal it, it will stop being the highest law of the land.

The thing about originalists is that we REJECT the idea that you should let your policy preferences warp how you read the law. If the law means something bad, welp, it means something bad, go change it, don't lie about it.

So, "But if you interpret the Constitution to mean that bad things will happen!" doesn't move us at all. It's irrelevant, we're not asking what the Constitution should mean, we're asking what it DOES mean.

I really hate the income tax, this doesn't affect at all my interpretation of the 16th amendment. I think direct election of Senators was a bad idea from the perspective of constitutional structure and maintaining federalism, doesn't impact how I read the 17th amendment in the least.

[SRG2]

Denial of cert in a DP case - Humphreys was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. It turned out that one juror had been a victim of a violent crime, lied about it under oath during voir dire, and then screamed and had hysterics in the jury room, showing extreme bias, when the rest of the jury didn't go along with her wish for the DP. Eventually the rest of the jury went along with her. Obviously unfair, but not unfair enough for the SC to grant cert - "can't impugn the jury verdict1" Er, yes you can in some cases.

Whether Humphreys deserves the DP is a separate issue from whether he should have won his appeal because you can't let jurors do this.

Sotomayor's dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-826_10n2.pdf

[Martinned]

Speaking of juries, apart from that mess the main problem with juries is that they don't/can't give reasons, meaning that their reasoning cannot be challenged on appeal. A court, on the other hand, can produce something like this, which will undoubtedly be appealed and challenged in detail.

ICC Trial Chamber I - judgment in the matter of The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman

[Martinned]

P.S. Here is an interesting blog post about the judgment, discussing how the ICC (trial chamber and appeals chamber) has dealt with the principle of legality (nulla poena sine lege) in a situation such as this, where the defendant is a citizen of a state that did not ratify the Rome Statute, committed the alleged crime in a country that did not ratify the Rome Statute, and where the jurisdiction of the Court is based on a Security Council referral.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/abd-al-rahman-trial-judgment-new-views-on-the-principle-of-legality-applied/

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry Martinned, in Amurica we don't kneel in front of some inbred King's Schlong, or some "International" Clown Court, and which Rome Statue are you talking about? Michelangelo's "Moses" (why does he have Devil horns??), "Seduction of Prosperina"??, Trajan's Column (there's some underlying theme there, just can't get my hands around it, I stroke it enough, it'll come sooner or later)
Love how you Euro-trash are like Natives everywhere (I'm a native Atlantan, never been to the King Center (too dangerous) ignoring your own cultural landmarks.

Frank

[SRG2]

So you must be all in favour of "No Kings" protests. Good on you!

[Frank Drackman]

I don't like Kings, except maybe Elvis (and then only his early stuff)

[not guilty]

No love for Jerry Lawler, Frank?

[Bob from Ohio]

"No Kings" protests"

The last one sure stopped ole Donnie. You guys live to protest, its better than sex!

[Sarcastr0]

It sure seems to piss a lot of MAGA people off for not mattering at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mocking is not being "pissed off".

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody here cares. ICC = LOL

[wvattorney13]

The problem with that case is that if you rule in favor of the defendant you might as well repeal the no-impeachment rules.

The dissent says that this qualifies as an "exceptional" case but it is really par for the course. I would be that nearly EVERY guilty verdict, if the jury deliberations were audio recorded, would find a violation of instructions, juror bias, misapplication of law, etc.

Also it isn't evidence that the juror lied at voir dire. She may have been lying to the other jurors to convince them to impose the DP. In any event, who are these 11 spineless people who came around to her side?

[David Nieporent]

In any event, who are these 11 spineless people who came around to her side?

That was my reaction to the case description, as well.

[Kenneth Almquist]

It seems like the foreperson misinterpreted the directions the judge gave to the jury after the jury sent a note indicating that it was deadlocked:

Barber later explained that she did not believe it was an option to send another note to the court stating that the jury was deadlocked since “[t]he judge had made it clear that it didn’t matter: [the jury] didn’t have a choice other than to be unanimous.”

Other members of the jury were worried that if the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision the defendant might be released or be given a sentence that would allow for parole.

At the start of deliberations the jury split 9 in favor of the death penalty, 3 in favor of life without parole, and none in favor of a lesser penalty. The later 11 to 1 vote in favor of life without parole probably included a bunch of jurors who were fine with imposing the death penalty but thought life without parole was a reasonable compromise.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.72600/gov.uscourts.ca11.72600.51.1.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

US citizen played the Ghostbusters theme in her clarinet at a protest at the Portland ICE facility,

She was arrested around 5 p.m.,
Her husband didn’t hear about her whereabouts until 2 a.m. the next day, only to discover she was being held at Clark County Jail in Vancouver, Washington.

No sign of specific probable cause, and no reason to take her out of state.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/portland-ice-clarinet-arrested-protest-b2845329.html

Early days yet, but unless something comes out to directly contradict this reporting, this is not defensible.

[DDHarriman]

"the-independent.com" lol get real

[SRG2]

On what grounds do you think the Independent is not to be trusted?

[ThePublius]

"Clark County Sheriff’s Office representative said she was being held on suspicion of assault on a federal officer."

They were chasing a suspect who ran into the band. Melee ensued.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems legit, given the utter lack of evidence.

Especially the moving her out of state bit.

[DDHarriman]

I didn't realize prosecutors are supposed to publicly release all their evidence before a trial.

I hope they do in this case so they can get your approval!

[Bob from Ohio]

"utter lack of evidence. "

According to her husband!

[Sarcastr0]

And her band. And the videos taken at the protest. And the Independent.

And DHS at this point has a history of asserting things without evidence that are later contradicted. Pointing to videos from years ago, or claiming videos from right now are from years ago.
Evidence and baseline truth doesn't matter much to them.
They know tools like you will insist whatever they say is true, so why bother making it convincing?

They, of course, called her and all the protesters Antifa.

[Bob from Ohio]

"videos taken at the protest"

The video mentioned was when she was actually under arrest. What videos show the incident itself?

Her band? Less reliable than her husband.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you've made your willful blindness clear over and over again. We all know what you're happy to allow when it comes to liberals.

Apparently that includes not telling anyone and shipping citizens out of state for no good reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no good reason"

You do not know the reason at all.

Might shock you but the US contracts for pre-trial criminal detention with local authorities.

Maybe Portland does not so contract, or it was full. I have no idea why, maybe its a bad reason or maybe good.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe!

Your burden of proof on what is legit is, again, where I’d expect it to be.
I’m not sure there is any abuse of liberals you wouldn’t defend.

[Estragon]

“Maybe Portland does not so contract”

MCDC does indeed so contract. I worked on some prisoner litigation once upon a time. Some of the pro se complaints were a bit out there. That was in the before times, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, to most everyone grabbing a protester and immediately transporting them out of state is not normal behavior.

But Bob from Ohio will excuse everything.

[Estragon]

I can’t speak to the current capacity at MCDC.

For the record, from the ICE facility, Clark county is probably closer than, for example, the Columbia county lockup. I also suspect that the Clark county facility is larger than Columbia’s.

[Jmaie]

"Especially the moving her out of state bit."

Not commenting on whether the arrest was justified, but Vancouver is about ten miles from the Portland ICE facility. At least that part doesn't seem nefarious...

[Life of Brian]

Ah, thanks for surfacing that. I don't have nearly the bandwidth to keep up with all of Sarc's cagey distortions.

[Frank Drackman]

In ICE's defense the nails-on-the-chalkboard sound of an unskilled Clarinet player has been used as an "Enhanced Interrogation Technique" Most peoples musical talents should be confined like mine are, to the Shower. (and No, Car's not acceptable either, if you've ever seen my Kareoke version of "Love Shack" you'd know why

Frank "Red, Roof, busted!

[John F. Carr]

There were some posts here a year or two ago on criminal liability for accidentally killing a bystander during an otherwise justified shooting. Texas has liberal laws allowing use of deadly force and sometimes the wrong person gets shot. The law has to decide whether such mistakes are crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently decided state law for criminal prosecutions in such cases.

Defendant Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez shot at Irving Sanchez but missed his target and killed Trung Tran instead. This much is agreed. Whether killing Sanchez would have been murder is disputed. Under settled law, any criminal intent towards intended target Sanchez transfers to Tran. If killing Sanchez would have been murder, killing Tran was murder.

Defendant Santana-Rodriguez argues self-defense. His attorney told the SJC that Massachusetts should adopt Pennsylvania law where killing a bystander in an attempt of self-defense is not a crime. The prosecution argued that killing a bystander is never justified, or can only be justified if the defendant acted without negligence. Most states are between the "never" and "always" extremes.

The court split the difference and adopted a form of the majority rule, stating

We conclude that a defendant's lawful self-defense against an assailant may excuse the killing of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander. This is not, however, a defense to wanton or reckless conduct. A defendant may therefore be held criminally liable for the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if the Commonwealth proves that a defendant's exercise of self-defense was wanton or reckless so as to create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to an unintended victim.

Commonwealth v. Santana-Rodriguez, SJC-13753 https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-santana-rodriguez-sjc-f13753/download

In my opinion, proving negligence is easy in such cases – gun control means hitting your target – but proving recklessness is hard.

This decision comes on pretrial motions. The parties need to know the law to present the case to a jury. The SJC is more generous than federal appeals courts in granting interlocutory review.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would this apply to a police officer?

[John F. Carr]

The reasoning would apply to police charged criminally for killing bystanders. Police are rarely charged. In civil cases the legal rules are different, "clearly established" right for constitutional claims and usually negligence for state-law claims.

[apedad]

It should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

If an officer is shooting at a specific, identified, valid, threatening suspect and accidently shoots a bystander, that could be justified.

But if an officer is shooting at a random target, not fully identified, or the shooting is not justified based on specific circumstances, then they could be held liable.

Each incident is unique.

(Retired federal officer)

[Voize of Reazon]

If an officer is shooting at a specific, identified, valid, threatening suspect and accidently shoots a bystander, that could be justified.

Excused, maybe. Not justified.

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect that cases like this are rare but they are one reason I am concerned about people having too easy access to guns. Guns are very dangerous and people using them without training or carelessly are even more dangerous. Bullets don't fly where the shooter intends, but rather where the gun is pointing. One of the first rules I remember from hunter training is to not only know where your target is, but what is near and behind your target.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why I don't buy that Dick Chaney shot that guy in the Heart "accidently"

Frank

[ducksalad]

Cheney, Face?

[Moderation4ever]

You are right, Dick did shoot Harry Whittington in the face. Frank's point is good. It wasn't really an accident because Chaney was violating hunting rules and shooting to the back of the skirmish line rather than forward.

[Magister]

Face, neck and chest; Wikipedia says Whittington subsequently had a heart attack "due to at least one lead shot lodged in or near his heart".

[Armchair]

"In my opinion, proving negligence is easy in such cases – gun control means hitting your target – but proving recklessness is hard."

It all depends on the circumstances. Is it reckless to fire a full clip blindly against an assailant approaching you 30 feet away with a knife, when there's a group of children directly behind him?

Most people would say yes.

[ThePublius]

What's a clip? Could you possibly mean magazine?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm confused (as usual)
aren't these "Drug Boats" supposed to be flying a "Skull & Crossbones" Flag so everyone knows to stay away from them?

[NvEric]

Here's a good story:
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congress-collected-30-million-lines-phone-data-trump-j6-probe-raising-civil

[Moderation4ever]

In a follow-up from last week's post I read this week that the government turned down the Navajo Tribe connected Energy Company's bid for a coal mining lease. The bid was less than a penny a ton for the coal. I know that President Trump cannot read but maybe one of his staff could read the paper to him so he can start to understand that coal is not ever coming back.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never say never and always avoid always.

[jimc5499]

NASA has had so much mission creep that who knows what it's mission is any more. For a while there they were cheerleaders for climate change. Then it was all about Arab scientists. They kind have forgotten that they are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[Sarcastr0]

NASA mission was all about Araba scientists?

You really need to get out more.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting concurring opinion (helpfully short) providing criticism of federal Indian law:

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/sal-mungia-federal-indian-law-opinion/

[John F. Carr]

Judge Mungia has gone off the reservation, as they say.

"I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law"

It is not his place to decide whether federal case law is racist and it is definitely not his place to dissent from U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Judge Mungia only took office this year, after a career mostly in tort law, and will not be up for reelection until 2030.

Perhaps we should abolish all the Indian laws. For a period of transition, convert the reservations into municipalities coordinate with counties.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is not his place to decide whether federal case law is racist and it is definitely not his place to dissent from U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Where does this "his place" rule arise?

Lower court judges (of a range of ideologies) regularly discuss their disagreement with current law, granting as he does that they are bound by high court precedents.

This is not novel. Concurring and dissenting opinions are particularly in place to provide personal statements of this kind.

Imagine a state court judge in 1859 noting, while acknowledging they are bound by it, that Dred Scott was wrong and the case law is racist.

Some editorial ignores their (quite valid) criticism and discuss how it is not the judge's "place" to say anything.

[Area Man]

Indian law is racist, but not for the reasons that judge gives. It’s racist because it gives Indians special privileges based on their race and ethnicity, thereby violating equality under the law. That might have been fine when they were truly separate people living under separate sovereignty. But once they became citizens, they had to give up any racial spoils and be treated equally with their fellow citizens. That works both ways, of course. They can’t be treated any worse because of their race than anyone else. But you can have citizenship or you can have special privileges. You can’t have both, at least not because of your race.

[David Nieporent]

gives Indians special privileges based on their race and ethnicity,

No, it gives them special privileges based on their tribal citizenship. If the U.S. makes a treaty with the Navajo Nation, granting its citizens certain rights, the U.S. later declaring that the Navajo are now U.S. citizens doesn't abrogate that treaty.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the US government could grant Masons special privileges by making a treaty with them? Wow, that EPC has a hole the size of a barn door!

This doesn't sound right; It seems to me that "Capable of having a treaty with country X" and "Citizens of country X" are mutually exclusive.

Mind you, the whole idea of involuntarily imposing citizenship on citizens of another sovereign and then claiming jurisdiction over them on that basis seems a bit sketchy to me to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

So, the US government could grant Masons special privileges by making a treaty with them?

No; one doesn't make treaties with fraternal organizations. Just with nations.

[Brett Bellmore]

And one does not involuntarily 'grant' citizenship to the citizens of another nation. Apparently the Indians are only other nations when convenient.

[Bob from Ohio]

According to Sarcasto, you are a bad libertarian. No doubt David is a good libertarian, supporting special privileges for some US citizens based on race..

Our Dutch friend, of all people, is on the right track. Either Indians are US citizens or are SuperCitizens. The granting of citizenship should result in the termination of all treaty "rights".

[Martinned]

That's been my question for a long time too. My (tentative) view is that all treaties with indian nations no longer have any legal effect except insofar as Congress has said otherwise based on its ordinary lawmaking powers. But I struggle to understand how Congress could give indigenous peoples special privileges in half of Oklahoma over that state's objection.

[Brett Bellmore]

That part is actually pretty easy. The Indians were sovereign nations that were there first, the dodgy part was even saying that the Indian territory was part of the state in the first place.

[Martinned]

Yes, the treaties were legally fine at the time they were made. But the US cannot make or maintain a treaty with itself or one of its subdivisions, and so at whatever moment the indian nations ceased to be sovereign those treaties ceased having legal effect in international law. From that point onwards it's purely a domestic law situation, and the treaties with the indian nations are no longer a "treaty" in the sense of the supremacy clause.

[David Nieporent]

Um, nobody has ever given a fuck about international law; the relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. has always been about domestic law. (Moreover, I don't even understand your attempted distinction; federal law and treaties have the same status with respect to the supremacy clause.) Also, Indian tribes are sovereigns in the sense in which states are sovereigns.

Brett is confused for the same reason he periodically argues that birthright citizenship might be evadable by declaring (e.g.) Hondurans to be an Indian tribe: he doesn't understand that under our constitutional system, Indians are sui generis. One cannot analyze the relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. by deriving it from first principles. One

[Martinned]

federal law and treaties have the same status with respect to the supremacy clause

Federal statutes need a legal basis, typically in art. I(8) of the Constitution. Treaties can also cover matters for which the Federal government isn't otherwise competent, since the states are forbidden from entering into treaties with foreign states.

Indian tribes are sovereigns in the sense in which states are sovereigns.

Neither one is a sovereign. The states haven't been sovereign since the constitution entered into force. Calling them sovereign is just a sloppy shorthand for the idea that the federal government has limited powers, while the general police power belongs to the states.

Indian tribes are not even sovereign in that sense. They only have the powers given to them by the federal or state authorities.

Incidentally, as far as I know people born on indian reservations as members of an indian tribe are still citizens under the 14th amendment, exactly because indian tribes are not sovereign. So I'm not sure why anyone would think that this is some sort of loophole.

[ducksalad]

So I'm not sure why anyone would think that this is some sort of loophole.

They think that because they really, really badly want a loophole.
But in this case I believe Congress did pass a law (1924 Indian Citizenship Act) so they can plausibly claim it's the statute and not the 14th Amendment that did the trick.

[David Nieporent]

Neither one is a sovereign. The states haven't been sovereign since the constitution entered into force. Calling them sovereign is just a sloppy shorthand for the idea that the federal government has limited powers, while the general police power belongs to the states.

No; that's not what it's shorthand for. For example, double jeopardy doesn't limit prosecutions by both the federal and state governments because they're different sovereigns. States and tribes have sovereign immunity.

Indian tribes are not even sovereign in that sense. They only have the powers given to them by the federal or state authorities.

States do not in fact have any say over tribal powers.

Incidentally, as far as I know people born on indian reservations as members of an indian tribe are still citizens under the 14th amendment, exactly because indian tribes are not sovereign. So I'm not sure why anyone would think that this is some sort of loophole.

Because you are incorrect. Indians born as tribal members have birthright citizenship because of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, not because of the 14th amendment. Indians are one of the three recognized exceptions to the 14th amendment, along with children of diplomats and invading armies. See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

[Area Man]

Their tribal citizenship is based entirely on their race and ethnicity. And it's only certain tribes. The native peoples of Hawaii are not considered an "Indian tribe." Why? Because they aren't the correct race and ethnicity. Treating citizens differently isn't unconstitutional per se. But doing so because of their race and ethnicity is. They accepted the bargain of American citizenship. That comes with a lot of benefits, but also some burdens.

[David Nieporent]

Indians did not "accept the bargain of American citizenship." It's a law, not a "bargain." Nobody asks them whether they want to be citizens; they are.

[Area Man]

They could renounce their citizenship anytime they want. But they’ve chosen to keep it because of the benefits it bestows. But one of the burdens of citizenship is that you can’t get benefits because of your race or ethnicity.

[Voize of Reazon]

Native Hawaiians aren't treated like Navajo or Cherokee people because Hawaii didn't join the US by a treaty that preserved the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, it was by means of a US-led coup d'état that overthrew the native government.

[Area Man]

Even accepting that premise as true, that doesn’t explain why they aren’t currently given trial status.

[Voize of Reazon]

Actually it does. That status arises from treaties, and no new tribal nations can be recognized since 25 U.S.C. §71 came into effect in 1871:

No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"[I]f our Constitution embalms inflexibly the habits of 1789 there may be something in the point. But it does not; its grants of power to Congress comprise, not only what was then known, but what the ingenuity of men should devise thereafter. Of course, the new subject-matter must have some relation to the grant; but we interpret it by the general practices of civilized peoples in similar fields, for it is not a strait-jacket, but a charter for a living people."

Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, 276 F. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) (Judge Hand).

I have been skimming Gerald Gunther's seminal biography of Learned Hand. A lot of interesting material. "Learned" was his mother's maiden name. His birth name was Billings Learned Hand.

His "Spirit of Liberty" speech is well worth reading:

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

Near the end of his life, he had his "Bill of Rights" lectures that provided a very strict take on judicial review. Hand was throughout his career very wary of judicial review but the lectures is basically Hand on steroids on the point.

Josh Blackman found a clip of him singing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKN_W35P8jA

Hand never got to fulfill his dream of being on the Supreme Court. His last chance came when he was over 70.

His supporters figured FDR, after making an issue of justices being too old, would not want to pick him for that reason. The reason FDR went another way was as likely ideological.

He outlasted the person FDR wound up picking by over a decade.

[DDHarriman]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15192815/Terrifying-footage-reveals-moment-far-left-arsonist-firebombs-home-Pennsylvania-Governor-Josh-Shapiro-war-Gaza.html

The far-left arsonist who firebombed the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro targeted a room where the Democrat had held a Passover Seder earlier that night.

Those violent MAGAts!!

[Magister]

Balmer was described by his brother as a political independent until 2024, when he tried to convince his family members to vote for Donald Trump.

Famously, that's the way to recognize someone on the far left.

[DDHarriman]

He confessed his motivation... telling investigators he targeted Shapiro over “what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

Would you say his motivation was far-right, far-left, or centrist?

[Nelson]

Neither.

[Magister]

With an absence of other information (but we have supporting Trump and targeting a Jewish Democratic politician), I would be most likely to guess Islamist, which doesn't really map onto left or right domestically. Maybe just antisemitic, which occurs on both left and right. Trump support and trying to kill a Democrat would be right wing, though.

But what he says after his arrest may be a convenient lie as is so often the case with violent offenders (e.g., the right wing Minnesota murderer of a Democratic state legislator made false claims that Walz ordered the killings).

[hobie]

Trump's Time photo shows a perfect ear.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, a pretty good ear, anyway.

Plastic Surgeon Walks Us Through Trump’s Ear Injury One Year After Assassination Attempt

Bottom line: He healed well, and possibly uses makeup to hide the scar.

[ThePublius]

What are you saying, that it didn't happen? Why are you such an asshole?

[David Nieporent]

What do you mean by "it" happening? Trump's ear was obviously injured, whether by shrapnel or a direct hit. It's just that the injury was more trivial than the average guy gets cutting himself while shaving.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if a bullet misses blowing the side of your head out by an inch, and just grazes you, the injury may be reasonably described as "trivial", (I do wonder about his hearing in that ear now, though.) and at the same time you barely escaped death.

If he hadn't moved his head after the guy pulled the trigger, he'd be dead now.

But, yes, it sure sounds like Hobie is flirting with claiming the assassination attempt was faked.

[Frank Drackman]

You must be a real Klutz if you cut yourself that bad while shaving.
And I shave alot, my Scalp (That "Daddy Warbucks" shine doesn't happen by itself, I get a few straggling hairs, like those little Saplings you see in the Hiroshima photos, that I chop off like that "Head Chopping Off Machine" in "Caligula") Ears, Nose Hairs I pluck like a Chicken, and of course my face, never been able to get the Facial Hair Thang to work out, didn't shave for a month once, thought I looked like Sonny Crockett, youngest daughter said my mouth looked like a Vagina,
Wow, that didn't come out like I intended.

*Anyone know where I can get one of those "Head Chopping Off Machines"?? No, not a Guillotine, like the one in "Caligula"

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I still remember the old days, back in 2024 when Trump and his apologists here kept claiming that Project 2025 had nothing to do with Trump or his future administration. Good times!

[hobie]

For the Epsteinth time...what does this have to do with the client list on Pam Bondi's desk?!

[JohnSmith97]

Must be something interesting about it, seeing as it was on garland's desk as well.

[Sarcastr0]

They were all so offended we'd even dare to make such an accusation.

And now they demand we still take their foot stomping defenses of Trump seriously.

[Kazinski]

Do you think Trump was lying when he said during the Campaign he hadn't read it and did know what was in it?

I don't.

The fact that many of the things in it are things he wants to do anyway isn't surprising, nor would it be surprising if 2/3 the things in Project 2025 he hasn't even brought up let alone attempted.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude.

The fact that they came from his former admin, many joined his current admin, and marched right in on day 1 with EO's written by Project 2025 people is just a bunch of coincidences.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't square "Generated by right wingers" and "Wasn't Trump's"?

[Martinned]

I can. There's a reason I usually talk about The Regime, rather than Trump. There's a lot of things Trump doesn't care about very much, where he empowers people to do whatever they feel like as long as it's authoritarian.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Brett, I can't square you specifically claiming here that there was separation between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign, and what happened after the election.

[Zarniwoop]

Do you think Trump was lying when he said during the Campaign he hadn't read it ...

I have little trouble believing that the famously-non-reading DJT was not lying when he said he didn't read something.

and did know what was in it?

I assume you mean "didn't know"?

I think he wasn't provably lying in the sense of "while he didn't read it, he did get a full briefing with powerpoint slides" level of awareness of the contents. Because his attention span just isn't that good. He made a technically correct statement that he was ignorant of what his hard core supporters wrote, and planned, and then (shockingly!) went ahead and implemented.

No one is surprised that this is how it went down.

[Magister]

I assume you mean "didn't know"?

Not necessarily; Trump said he knew a lot about this thing he didn't read, had never seen, had nothing to do with and generally disavowed.

[Martinned]

I think Trump was lying when he said he didn't know what was in it. He definitely wasn't lying when he said he didn't read it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Trump was lying" is a pretty safe bet regardless of the topic.

[DDHarriman]

Can anyone speculate why KJB would argue that racist gerrymanders are necessary because "They [blacks] don't have equal access to the voting system. They're DISABLED!"

Why does KJB believe being black is like a disability? Is it their terribly low average IQ?

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1978498569779737089

[Life of Brian]

I actually played the linked section of the oral argument, thinking that couldn't possibly be a correct quote.

Apparently she was so focused on her Very Clever Analogy to the ADA that she lost track of the actual words coming out of her mouth and how they would look in print.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If you listened to the whole Q&A, you would hear her say "we used the word 'disabled' in Milligan," citing Allen v. Milligan (2023).

The reference was not to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in Allen v. Milligan noted:

"That occurs where an individual is disabled from 'enter[ing] into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner' in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise.”

The word "disabled" is being used in a perfectly normal way here. The misunderstanding is somewhat understandable, but perhaps if the sneering is toned down a tad, it might be less likely.

[Michael P]

The word "disabled" was used in a perfectly normal way in Roberts' opinion. Saying a person is "disabled" has a standard meaning, which is not the same meaning as "disabled from entering into the political process". Using a subordinate clause is critical to distinguish it from the meaning of "disabled" without qualifications.

[Magister]

And the word was used in a perfectly normal way to reference Roberts' perfectly normal way of using it. The earlier commenters ended up looking stupid, so Michael P had to jump in to get some of that.

[David Nieporent]

Using a subordinate clause is critical to distinguish it from the meaning of "disabled" without qualifications.

Reading is critical to understand how a word is being used. You could've just admitted that you didn't do that, and instead saw some liar tweeting about what she said and chose to believe that liar.

[Life of Brian]

I don't disagree with a word you said about what she was trying to do.

My comment, though, was about how she did it. Again, she was so hyperfocused on her way clever analogy -- that's why she spent the first minutes or so talking about the ADA, because she was analogizing to it -- that she didn't think about the actual words coming out of her mouth and the 100% likelihood that exactly what happened would happen.

It was a dumb soundbite to put out there, and -- like or not -- when you're explaining, you're losing.

[Magister]

when you're explaining, you're losing.

What a great way to end an explanation! Looking forward to the explanation that that wasn't explaining.

[Life of Brian]

The Bee nailed it, as usual.

https://babylonbee.com/news/clarence-thomas-gently-explains-to-kbj-that-not-all-black-people-are-mentally-disabled-just-her

[hobie]

CNN reporting that a facility-wide lockdown at the camp Maxwell is in, for her to receive undisclosed visitors. Prior to the visit, Maxwell was given a perm and hair color treatment...another first in BOP history

[Estragon]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ghislaine-maxwell-gets-hotel-guest-treatment-club-fed-prison-consultant-says.amp

Ms Maxwell knows where bodies are buried. But no matter how nice they make this incarceration in Texas— the Riviera is nicer.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Speaking with the sister of one of my clients "

Seems ironclad. Unnamed sister of unnamed prisoner.

[Sarcastr0]

︀︀"any funds appropriated by the Congress that remain available for expenditure in Fiscal Year 2026 to accomplish the scheduled disbursement of military pay and allowances for active duty military personnel, as well as for Reserve component military personnel who have performed active service during the relevant pay period."

I'm enough of a student of history to think it's very important to pay your military

But this is flagrantly illegal.

[ThePublius]

So you don't want to pay the military, during this Democratic stunt?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, exactly I don't want to pay the military. That's not at all the opposite of what I said.

What a maroon.

[ThePublius]

No, you say two conflicting things, but aren't clear about what you think the outcome should be. Should the (supposed) law be enforced and the troops not be paid, or should Hegseth go ahead and pay them?

[Sarcastr0]

My two statements are not in conflict, and the fact that you think they are shows how little you care about laws, only the outcomes you want.

There is, of course, a legal way to pay the military. Johnson can bring the House back any time. But he's afraid of the Epstein files release.

This may be Trump's clearest lawlessness yet - Executive reappropriation is English Civil War type stuff.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't you mean Schumer and the Dems can vote for the CR?

[David Nieporent]

Meanwhile, it turns out that the government pressuring private social media companies to censor the public is actually perfectly okay with MAGA:

Meta on Tuesday removed a Facebook group that was used to share information about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Chicago after the Department of Justice requested that it be taken down.

The Facebook group was removed by the company “following outreach” by the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a social media post. The page was used “to dox and target” immigration agents in Chicago, she added.

But I'm sure it was just a one-time thing, a mistake by DOJ.

FIRST ON FOX: Apple dropped ICEBlock, a widely used tracking tool, from its App Store Thursday after the Department of Justice raised concerns with the big tech giant that the app put law enforcement officers at risk.

DOJ officials, at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, asked Apple to take down ICEBlock, a move that comes as Trump administration officials have claimed the tool, which allows users to anonymously report ICE agents' presence, puts agents in danger and helps shield illegal immigrants.

Oh. Well, I guess IOKIYAAR.

[hobie]

You know, pointing out rank hypocrisy has been all well and good. Our expectations are that we're dealing with normal people that recognize the same set of facts. But that no longer seems to be the case. So I don't see the point in debating all this anymore.

When you have all these people who saw with their own eyes Trump trying to steal the election, yet somehow think it was Obama who did it. What more can you say?

I seem to see on social media now that normal people are starting to stop being reasonable and starting to get militant. I know that excites the rubes here, but as a peaceful, rational person, it scares the hell out of me.

[Kazinski]

I think EV has written a lot on "Crime Facilitating Speech".

https://www2.law.ucla.edu/Volokh/facilitating.pdf

I guess it would be a good question for him, If Apple or Meta has a reasonable suspicion that the the apps or webpages are intended to encourage or facilitate a crime, assault or unlawful harassment of Federal Agents, do they have a civil or criminal exposure?

That is actually quite different than providing vaccine information or even disinformation.

Nobody would blink if Apple banned an app that kept track of the President's or VP's schedule and used AI to pinpoint locations where a sniper could overlook the venue where the President is expected to be. What's the difference if they are doing the same thing for ICE agents that are lawfully executing their duties?

[John F. Carr]

NPR reports from Afghanistan:

If women can't do man things and men shouldn't be around unrelated women, how do you rescue woman after an earthquake? How do you give them health care at all? There was a midwife class for women but that was cancelled. The hardline leadership is in conflict with the more liberal mid levels of the Taliban.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/10/14/g-s1-92863/afghanistan-taliban-earthquake-women-girls-rescue

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radios still in the league???

[Zarniwoop]

It has never ceased to amaze me that there are folks in this world who think that midwifery should be a "male job".

[Jerry B.]

Tl;dr

[Zarniwoop]

I'm glad to see that a GOP congresscritter can denounce the appearance of an American flag altered to include a Nazi swastika in their own office. Per USA Today:

CINCINNATI — A Republican congressman from Ohio has denounced the display of an American flag altered to reveal a swastika inside his Washington, D.C. office, calling it a "vile and deeply inappropriate symbol" that is now under investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police.

It appeared on a wall display behind a staffer, and was spotted in a Zoom call. Still unknown if the staffer was a Young Republican.

[David Nieporent]

Calling for an investigation of that is like the Hot Dog Guy Meme.

[ducksalad]

That's unfair. I'm sure Rep. Taylor never intended for the swastika to be displayed on a Zoom call, and he really is investigating how that happened.

[Estragon]

He did condemn it, which is guess is good, although I think we’re stopping short of accountability:

“Taylor believes it is the result of “foul play or vandalism,” the spokesperson said.”

Maybe it was antifa?

[Life of Brian]

Nah, feels a lot more like this sad debacle.

[Martinned]

How great is it that we have the Trump Regime leading the fight against antisemitism?

https://gizmodo.com/border-patrol-posts-instagram-propaganda-video-featuring-antisemitic-slurs-2000672645

[ThePublius]

So, someone post something that is taken as antisemitic, and you pin on Trump? You're an ass.

[Martinned]

I like the "taken as"-hedge. I've never seen you do that before. I guess it's only servants of the Regime who get the benefit of the doubt from you.

[David Nieporent]

"Someone." That being Trump: unitary executive FTW!

[Martinned]

Since I have occasionally cast doubt on the 2028 elections, let me just clarify that I do think there will be elections. But Russia has elections too. The question is whether the 2028 elections (and indeed the elections next year) will be free and fair.

Since this blog post conveniently lists the criteria for assessing whether elections are free and fair, I will specify that my main issues are:

2. Independent, impartial, and competent election administration
Trump has been trying to capture the administration of elections at all levels ever since he took over in January. The Orwellianly-named Department for Homeland Security has a whole unit devoted to this task.

3. Robust enforcement mechanisms
In 2000 the Supreme Court already showed a willingness to give the Republican candidate the win, and that court was a lot less in thrall to the GOP than the current court is to Trump.

4. A healthy information environment
Beating news media and universities into submission is not good, obviously.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, since you are not a US citizen, and do not vote, it does not matter what you think wrt the 2028 election.

Try fixing europe, first. Start with ROM, ESP.

[Sarcastr0]

Your opinion of the 2028 election also doesn’t matter. None of us are here because of the weight of our opinions.

[Martinned]

What's wrong with Spain? (Other than that it elected a government of the centre-left, which is something you don't approve of.)

If it helps, the polls in Spain show the far right on the rise, albeit only at the expense of the centre right. PSOE is also up in recent months.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/spain/

[Martinned]

Otherwise, the main issue is one of externalities. If the citizens of the US elect a president whose approach to international relations most closely resembles a mentally ill teenager high on PCP carrying a loaded machine gun, that has consequences for every other country on earth.

[ThePublius]

I don't know how you can say that given his success in bringing peace to so many situations, most recently in Gaza, and his great success with tariffs (which NO economist predicted, I might add).

[Martinned]

I don't know how you can say that given his success in bringing peace to so many situations, most recently in Gaza

There is no peace in Gaza, as I and many others have discussed above. There is a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and a hostage exchange. That is all.

his great success with tariffs (which NO economist predicted, I might add)

Not only did no economist predict it, no economist would agree with you that this is a thing that is actually happening.

[ThePublius]

You're a fool. Look at the investments companies are making in the U.S., most recently by Stellantis.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's the predicted effect of tariffs. But the point is that the net effect of tariffs is negative, because the inflationary pressures of the tariffs themselves and the reshoring you mention are worse than the employment effect in swing states.

It means that Trump has to do stuff like this: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/02/trump-bailouts-farmers-tariffs-usda-00591846

[Frank Drackman]

Did your King Pederaster approve your comment??

[David Nieporent]

Every economist except Ron Vara* predicted his great failure with tariffs, which has indeed occurred.

*IYKYK.

[Frank Drackman]

Did your King Pederaster approve your comment??

[Michael P]

Matt Yglesias has a piece in draft with the headline "What went wrong with Biden and immigration". The subhed is "Splashy announcements and policy paralysis", which is an absolutely mindless way to characterize the Autopen approach to immigration. There was no policy paralysis: they very intentionally opened the floodgates and worked to make it hard for Trump to enforce immigration law or otherwise remove economic migrants who were irregularly admitted.

[Martinned]

The Great Replacement! You've figured it out!

[Michael P]

The guy wasn't exactly keeping it a secret by writing this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I actually read that book. And you obviously didn't, since nothing in your comment even comes remotely close to what Yglesias wrote. That shouldn't really surprise anyone here.

Incidentally, I didn't find Yglesias's argument very convincing. Interesting read, though.

[Michael P]

Was it "a piece in draft" that clued you in that my first comment wasn't talking about what he wrote in a 2020 book?

[Magister]

So your second comment was purely judging the book by its title and/or cover? Observant readers will have noted that you used the book to support your Great Replacement claim.

[Brett Bellmore]

A remarkably even handed essay:

What Are We Living Through? Three competing narratives of the second Trump administration.

"Political judgment takes place within political time. And political time is less a matter of chronology than of genre. What kind of moment are we living through? Is our system of government undergoing a cyclical swing, an existential transformation, or something in between? Nine months into the second Trump administration, Americans confront three very different answers to these questions.

One view, dominant at this point among mainstream liberals and centrists, is that the United States has entered a dangerous new era of authoritarian crisis. Following a playbook used in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, and other illiberal regimes, the Trump administration is attacking independent institutions such as the media and universities, turning the Justice Department and other government agencies into instruments of extortion and retaliation, manipulating official data, pardoning violent allies, dehumanizing marginalized communities, declaring endless emergencies, and preparing the military to suppress “the enemy from within.” The emerging authoritarian crisis is also a constitutional crisis, as an ever more emboldened and presidentialized executive branch sidelines Congress and the civil service, deploys troops domestically over the objections of state and local officials, and flirts with ignoring judicial rulings. Variously framing the threat as one of autocracy, kleptocracy, fascism, patrimonialism, gangsterism, or another cousin of authoritarianism, this view insists that things have ceased to be “normal.” American democracy is beginning to fall apart.

A second view, espoused by prominent voices on the left as well as some libertarians, asserts that Trump has not ushered in a new order so much as highlighted and exacerbated preexisting pathologies. It’s mainly more of the same. Following a standard Republican playbook, his administration has embraced sweeping tax cuts, a selective gutting of economic and environmental regulations, and hostility to abortion and affirmative action. With some coarsening of the discourse and hardening of anti-immigrant policies, we could be in Ronald Reagan’s America. This through line is no cause for comfort. Whether styled as homegrown fascism, racial fascism, or simply the unreconstructed core of American political ideology, more of the same means more harsh immigration enforcement (as in Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” or Obama’s record-setting deportation program), more vilification of dissidents (as in the Red Scares or Nixon’s “Enemies List”), more expansion of the national security state, and more runaway deficits that fail to address runaway inequality. The real constitutional scandal is not the sudden arrival of “executive lawlessness”—the War on Terror had that in spades—but a long-festering rot that has eaten away at our system’s ability to produce responsive governance and thereby created the conditions for Trump 2.0.

According to a third view, embraced by many of Trump’s advisors and supporters, U.S. politics are indeed undergoing transformation but in a familiar or at least not unprecedented way, as part of a process of constitutional regime change. Trump’s decisive Electoral College victory in 2024, after a campaign with more sharply defined stakes than in 2016, put a popular (if not quite majoritarian) imprimatur on such change. Following a playbook developed during the New Deal and refined in the civil rights era, Trump’s team is employing all the tools at its disposal to reshape the balance of power across state and society in line with campaign pledges to curb illegal immigration, shrink the federal workforce, restore religion in the public sphere, and advance a “colorblind” conception of racial equality. To be sure, some of these shifts may be alarming to those socialized in the prior regime. But that’s what happens in a constitutional democracy when voters choose the other side. And if there has been some overreach or misadventure, well, the same could be said of any regime change. This revolution in law and governance, moreover, is at heart a “counterrevolution”—not so much a turn toward any foreign model as a return to principles that prevailed before the assaults of wokeism and Warren Court liberalism, the rise of the administrative state, and the proliferation of identitarian rights."

[apedad]

I like how the author in the third paragraph goes from "transformation" to "revolution" (or counterrevolution).

Not the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but that was the lead-in to explaining that according to the third view, Trump is actually engaged in counter-revolution, which means that what he's countering was itself revolution.

So it IS even-handed.

[Sarcastr0]

He gets all the sides right from what I can tell, but I'm not sure why that matters.

Allsidesing isn't a virtue.

[William of Brooklyn]

Fantastic article.

[Frank Drackman]

Contractor for the VA,
I'm still getting paid, if they don't pay me I'll do my other job (which I also still get paid for, being a Senior Partner has it's benis)
Of course I'm considered "essential" and why would you have "non essential" employees in the first place??

OK, maybe we don't need 1,500 National Parks/Monuments/Forests (I do like the Forests, you can actually shoot guns in most of them)

Frank

[apedad]

In other words, "I'm committing fraud by constantly commenting on a public website while being a government contractor."

[Frank Drackman]

I-ANAL but how is that "Fraud"??
Besides, maybe Queenie's right, I'm a Figament, a Will-o'-the-Wisp, an Apparition, a Phantom, or as the kids say today,
"Virtual"
Oh, I get it, the "Other Job", best I can tell, it's Kosher (get it? it's "Kosher" because I'm Jewish)
it's not I'm Joe Six-Pack punching a time clock down at the plant.
Although that's a thought, UPS pays their "Seasonal" workers pretty well, get to work outside, get some exercise.....

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I'm sure you meant something there.

[Frank Drackman]

That I'm not getting paid fraudulently, hey, this is supposed to be a "Legal" Blog, you should expect some bloviating.

Frank

[apedad]

New Oklahoma schools superintendent rescinds mandate for Bible instruction in schools

Oklahoma’s new public schools superintendent announced Wednesday he is rescinding a mandate from his predecessor that forced schools to place Bibles in classrooms and incorporate the book into lesson plans for students.

Superintendent Lindel Fields said in a statement he has “no plans to distribute Bibles or a Biblical character education curriculum in classrooms.” The directive last year from former Superintendent Ryan Walters drew immediate condemnation from civil rights groups and prompted a lawsuit from a group of parents, teachers and religious leaders that is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was to have applied to students in grades 5 through 12.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Fields to the superintendent’s post after Walters resigned last month to take a job in the private sector.

https://srnnews.com/new-oklahoma-schools-superintendent-rescinds-mandate-for-bible-instruction-in-schools/

Oklahoma is OK!

[ThePublius]

The Minnesota Director of Elections ADMITTED that illegal aliens can vote if they get a driver's license

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1978189478918234123#m

This is what the Democratic plan was all along. Flood the U.S. with mostly poor, mostly South American immigrants (illegal immigrants, I might add), issue them licenses, and allow them to vote.

[David Nieporent]

Spoiler alert: the Minnesota Director of Elections did not admit that illegal aliens can vote if they get a driver's license.

[Mr. Bumble]

"DIRECTOR: There are reports generated post-election for voters challenged that counties can run after they've cast a ballot..."
So their eligibility can be challenged after they've voted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Is that a plot point in that new DMV sitcom?

[ThePublius]

Lie! Yes, he did. Watch this video from 0:55 to 1:32.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "this video" refers to; the only video in this discussion is the one from the original Eric L Daugh tweet, and it doesn't even go to 1:32.

And he does not, in fact, say what you/Daugh claim.

[ducksalad]

Sure, just like anyone "can" rob a bank if they get a gun.

Stupid nothingburger story with a deliberately misleading use of words, followed by even worse spin from ThePublius.

[Sarcastr0]

I know racism and uncritical foolishness often go hand in hand, but this is too textbook to be real.

Linking to an alt-right Florida man's twitter feed and not even The Federalist or NewsMax...I mean, come on!

[ThePublius]

Where did you get the racism thing from? Egad, you must have a bottomless deck of race cards. I said nothing about race.

[Sarcastr0]

You did a Great Replacement ref. I'm not even sure you notice when you do it, so pickled are you.

[Life of Brian]

As the saying goes, when you're the only one who can hear the dog whistle, you're the dog.

[Bunny495]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/teens-who-assaulted-former-doge-staffer-get-no-jail-time-with-probation-only-sentences/ar-AA1OxuKE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ASTS&cvid=68f0da55500e4acc9c14808b30c18182&ei=78

[Frank Drackman]

Ham-Ass "can't find" the remains of 19 murdered Israelis.
Israel should "find" the remains of 19 Ham-Ass Terrorists, and
"return" them.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny how after agreeing to return ALL the hostages, both dead and alive, they can't find 19 dead hostages.
Lying liars gotta lie.

[David Nieporent]

What is your basis for calling it a lie?

The Gaza war appears to be Schroedinger's War, with the amount of damage done by Israel varying solely by what point the speaker wants it to be at that moment. To Hamas supporters, Israel committed a genocide and destroyed every building in Gaza — but actually Israel with all its weapons couldn't defeat the plucky resistance of Hamas and was forced to stop.

To Israel supporters, Israel won a resounding victory, utterly smashing Hamas — but it's an obvious lie that even so Hamas might not be in a position to find some specific individual corpses.

[ThePublius]

The corpses are probably so badly damaged by torture that Hamas dare not turn them over. Hasn't that ever occurred to you?

[David Nieporent]

1. "Probably."
2. Not sure why you think Hamas, which films itself doing all sorts of awful terrorist things, "dare not" do anything. What's Israel going to do, kill Hamas twice?
3. That your hypothetical is possible — of course it is — in no way proves Mr. Bumble's claim that they're lying. It's also entirely possible that in the course of a devastating two year war, Hamas lost track of some corpses, or that those corpses are under many feet of rubble. Hasn't that ever occurred to you?

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait until the first Turk/Egyptian/Emirate Soldier gets clipped in Gaza, seeing all the Ham-Ass Apologists try to blame it on Israel, they're already doing it with the summary executions. Not sure of the point of sending US Troops to Israel other than it's nicer (and safer) than the A-rab Shitholes we've been sending them to for the last 35 years.

Frank

[Martinned]

I don't know how useful they are, but sometimes factchecks do offer hilarity.

A dramatic voiceover video shared by the White House and US President Donald Trump claims to show immigration agents responding to the "mess" in Chicago as the Republican seeks to justify deploying National Guard troops to the Democrat-run city. But an AFP investigation found that the video is littered with outdated footage highlighting drug busts, arrests and deportation raids in other states, including Florida, Texas, South Carolina and Nebraska.

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.78MJ663

[loki13]

I honestly never thought I'd see the day that I have to treat official communications from the United States Government as if they were being stated by Baghdad Bob.

This is what happens when a government devolves into propaganda and has no concern for such things as fidelity to the truth, and is confident that even if the media bothers to note what they are saying is BS (which ... is not certain) ... the true believers won't care.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Seattle Mariners with a bit of a hiccup. They should have saved a pitcher and had a position player pitch at the end. That happened twice in the playoffs in recent times in a similar situation.

The Respecting Religion podcast (now with video) is back.

https://bjconline.org/respectingreligion/

Amanda Tyler wrote a book against Christian nationalism from a Baptist perspective.

[loki13]

Well, you know what's in the Good Book-

Render therefore unto Trump the things which are Trump's, and unto God the made-up facts you present to the Supreme Court.

Matthew 22:21 (New Trump Edition)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://bjconline.org/s5-ep-23-the-bible-doesnt-need-trumps-endorsement/

[Life of Brian]

You did it. You really really did it. You read a post about a baseball game and a religious podcast, and you scrounged up a way to pivot it to... Trump. Wow.

Bitter, irrational posting on the interwebz I can live with and occasionally chuckle at. The scary thing is that lots of people just like you are eventually going to end up wielding political power again.

[ThePublius]

"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz announced Thursday that an internal review uncovered more than $1 billion in Medicaid payments to illegal immigrants across several states, a problem he says the Trump administration is now moving to correct.

"The Democrats have been gaslighting us on this issue of Medicaid funds going to illegal immigrants for quite a while," Oz said on "Fox & Friends.""

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-oz-accuses-democrats-gaslighting-americans-over-1b-medicaid-payments-illegal-immigrants

[ducksalad]

That's more than $2.85 for each of us! If we solved this problem I could get a whole Q-tip or maybe even an extra tongue depressor every year.

[Sarcastr0]

Ain't no easier sucker than one who wants to be fooled.

[Life of Brian]

Bolton indictment here.

18 counts of transmitting and/or retaining national defense information. Apparently some of the information was sent from a (can't make this up) AOL account, which was subsequently hacked.

That's liable to leave a mark.