Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

The U.S. military has killed three men and destroyed another boat it suspected of running drugs in the Caribbean Sea, this one alleged to have been affiliated with a Colombian insurgency group, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Sunday.

It was the seventh boat known to have been attacked since early September as part of the Trump administration’s use of the military to kill people suspected of smuggling drugs as if they were enemy soldiers in a war, rather than arresting them as criminals. The latest strike took place on Friday, and Mr. Hegseth said in a social media post on Sunday that it had targeted a vessel associated with the National Liberation Army, a Colombian rebel group known as the E.L.N.

So far, the Trump administration has acknowledged killing 32 people in the strikes, whose legality has been widely disputed by outside legal specialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/us/politics/trump-military-boat-strike-colombia.html

Maritime law enforcement and drug interdiction is a function of the Coast Guard. Per 18 U.S.C. § 1385:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Murder is prohibited by Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918. What has become of the duty to disobey an unlawful order?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't that in the territorial waters of the US?

[not guilty]

The applicability of the UCMJ includes, per 10 U.S.C. § 10 U.S. Code § 802(a)(1):

Members of a regular component of the armed forces, and members of the Space Force on active duty under section 20105 of this title, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

The territorial application thereof is governed by 10 U.S.C. § 805: "This chapter applies in all places."

[Stephen Lathrop]

This seems pertinent:

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/18/nx-s1-5577941/adm-alvin-holsey-who-was-overseeing-the-venezuelan-boat-strikes-steps-down

Summary: An admiral in the chain of command directing the boat strikes resigned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good Riddance

[hobie]

Haven't you hayseeds been making a stink for years about presidents bombing civilians?

[Frank Drackman]

Wow! this might be a record for "Earliest invection of "Hayseed" not even 8am Eastern.
Well I might start "Making a Stink" (trust me, I can "Make it Stink") about a certain Hobie conspirator Hobie who Hobie claimed Hobie to Hobie have Hobie served Hobie in Hobie the Hobie Military.
Oh, you didn't steal Valor?
Well you can tell your story, and I can tell mine, and we'll let the VFW Chapter of the Hell's Angels decide who's they believe.
Quick Frankie Tip,
Don't call "Razor Blade" and "Demented" "Hayseeds"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

And properly so. We as a country are much, much too casual about this sort of thing.

If it was actually illegal smuggling, they should have been arrested and brought to trial.

[Frank Drackman]

It's being held now, on the floor of the Ocean.

[Harvey Mosley]

Eagerly awaiting Sarcastr0 coming to accuse Brett of Brettlaw or mind reading or vibes or something.

[Bwaaah]

"The Worst Libertarian Ever."

Why stand for something when you can stand against Brett Bellmore? Sarc is always focused on what matters most.

[bernard11]

Of course.

A child knows that, but apparently too many adults don't.

[AmosArch]

Is there any compelling evidence the military is crossing its is and dotting its ts in its investigation of making sure the targets are what they think they are, any less than the all the previous people previous presidents droned in the middle of whatthefuckistan?

If not. I don't see what makes these suspected narco traffickers are any more special than all the past suspected targets who also didn't get a full 10 year appeal process.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I always wondered what made the Taliban an enemy of the United States. Seemed to me we just made them a stand-in to soak up the retaliation earned by Bin Laden.

That said, the Taliban were armed, and carried out armed attacks against American troops. That's the difference. If the narco traffickers initiate armed hostilities against the American military, then you will have a relevant argument. You do not have one now.

[AmosArch]

Proper id is my barometer. If its found that the military is cutting corners in the investigation compared to what they did for previous targets. Or if all drone striking Presidents up to trump have not been using reasonable standards in general. Then yeah they should up their game. If not than I don't find real life breaking bad villains pushing poison on to American kids much more worthy of sympathy than foreign fighters. Many of which were droned much much farther from American territory in conflicts and doing actions of much more uncertain relevance to America.

[Commenter_XY]

So tens of thousand dead Americans from drug ODs for years is not enough for you, lathrop? Do they not count?

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man!! they're just "Hayseeds" (HT Hobie-Stank) Spicks, or stupid Jig-a-boos.
The "Beautiful People" are still into the Powder Cocaine, like Hunter B.

Frank

[jay.tee]

American dead definitely count - but not to justify shortcutting legal norms. In war, a different set of rules apply. But this isn’t a war; the boats are operated by civilians as far as we know.

If we can find these boats, we can intercept, arrest, and try the crew, or flip them to hook bigger fish.

Or perhaps move on to more critical “targets.”

[windycityattorney]

When the Sackler family and anybody from Purdue Pharma ever spends a single day in jail for causing "tens of thousand dead Americans" we can fucking talk about using lethal force in the War on (some) Drugs.

But we know how this works. The DOJ will start a civil investigation and those who knowingly made billions killing half of Appalachia will pay a fraction of those billions in civil fines and everything is hunky dory. A drone will never drop on them.

[Martinned]

Are we allowed to shoot Sacklers on sight?

[Nelson]

I wish. Those fuckers deserve to die slowly and painfully.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, Trump has to order them killed with drones. And pointing out the fact that he hasn't done so is certainly a valid criticism.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what "do they count" means. If someone deliberately or negligently overdoses, that is a tragedy for them and their loved ones, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. military.

The issue here is the U.S. government murdering people. Even if drug traffickers were to blame for overdoses, that would not justify summary execution of suspected drug traffickers.

[Nelson]

People ODing on drugs is the responsibility of the person choosing to take the drugs. It’s not like they’re the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma, telling everyone their drugs aren’t addictive or dangerous. Everyone (especially those taking the drugs) knows death is always a possibility.

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, I agree = People ODing on drugs is the responsibility of the person choosing to take the drugs.

Now the druggies know that death is always a distinct possibility when attempting to transport drugs to the US via the Caribbean.

[Nelson]

Except no one knows if they are actually drug smugglers. In at least one case there’s good evidence they weren’t.

More relevantly, the Trump administration literally doesn’t care if they kill innocent people as long as they can deflect from the Epstein files. The bonus is that it gives his sycophants a chubbie when he orders people to be killed.

[Jmaie]

[Frank Drackman]

Not surprising, since you never served, but despite all the DOD Touchy-Feely-ness of the last quarter century.
In the Military you don't really get to decide which orders you carry out and which ones you don't, or you'll get orders, usually to Leavenworth.

Frank

[not guilty]

What is the authority for the orders in question?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone walking into a bank is???

Only drug smugglers have powerful speedboats like these,

[windycityattorney]

Oh come the fuck on. As a boater myself; from the Florida Keys to Bahamas etc...and most anywhere there is an ocean and a coast there are plenty of cigarette boat enthusiasts who just love to put multiple big block engines in a boat and haul balls.

Many modern ocean sportfishing boats have like 3 or more 400hp+ outboards on them. Sometimes you need to go 80miles off shore to find your quarry and you need to go there, fish for hours and get back before the sun goes down. Speed is the only way to do it.

[Nelson]

“ Only drug smugglers have powerful speedboats like these,”

Dear God, you are a complete idiot.

[Commenter_XY]

We are talking about VEN and COL, not the US. Just how many uber-wealthy compatriots from those countries own cigarette boats?

Odds are, it wasn't just an innocent fishing boat. I do think the Trump admin should be more forthcoming with information.

[windycityattorney]

How many tourist locations in the Caribbean have fishing charters for deep sea fishing??

A: ALL OF THEM

Not everybody in the world is scared to go to these countries on vacation as they generally are much cheaper. Bonus if you speak Spanish already.

[Nelson]

So lethal military force is justified by … owning the wrong boat?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone walking into a bank with a shotgun is???

Only drug smugglers have powerful speedboats like these,

[AmosArch]

I wish Dems got 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th as indignant over the millions of death of completely verified completely innocent people as they do over (probable) narco traffickers too stupid to stop trafficking when they see their buddies lit up.

Lets just assume you are fairly sure that Trump got it wrong and blew up some random fisherman. (Which doesn't make sense since where is your evidence and why would they target someone without being fairly sure and risk the fallout when there are almost certainly tons of actual targets around?). Well thats a few dozen fishermen you're 90% sure are innocent vs hundreds to thousands we're 100% sure are innocent dead due to Defund the Police or millions a year death due to abortion you don't give a crap about.

[Martinned]

Math is hard...

[Frank Drackman]

and you're soft,
Hey, I heard your Kingie-Wingie was arrested for propositioning little boys at the "Anne Frank" House, can you confirm or deny??

[Sarcastr0]

"completely verified completely innocent people"

Your comment above made a great point. So here you are shifting the burden to stay mad at the left.

So you go back to the abortion well. A sure sign you saw glimpses of a legit critique of your side and needed some refuge from rationality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Going back to the abortion well, it's almost as bad as going back to the fiery furnace of Moloch. Killing innocent babies, how dare anybody compare that to something that's actually wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, beg the question and then get super hyperbolic.

It’s useless except for internal validation.

I’m all for safe legal and rare.
I and most Americans of polling is to be believed have no time for this over the top wank wank wank.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, if we can't agree on killing babies being evil, we occupy different moral universes, and there's not much to discuss.

Now, maybe our views aren't that totally disjoint, because of that 'rare', if you actually mean it. Because if you didn't think killing babies was a moral wrong, why would you want it to be rare?

I've seen the polls. A majority accept elective abortion at an early stage of development, but support for medically unnecessary abortions absolutely tanks after the first three months.

Just like the pro-life movement pushes to entirely outlaw elective abortion, not just restrict it to early pregnancy, the pro-abortion movement pushes to entirely legalize elective abortion, not just in early pregnancy. Which is why multiple states have de facto elective abortion right up to the moment of birth, by adopting extremely lenient definitions of medical "necessity", despite public opinion even in those states not really supporting such an extreme policy.

[Sarcastr0]

You know, if you have decided the question of when personhood attaches is an easy one, you're not thinking about things very hard.

The partisanization of the issue has caused bad policy choices all over the place.
I think the effect of rhetoric is overblown a lot of the time, but I think the rhetoric manges to be a big part of the problem here.

So I'd urge you next time not to focus only on one side of the ledger, avoid invoking Moloch, don't call them 'babies.' I am not one to call them zygotes myself.
But I'm sick and tired of the bloviating lack of engagement of the pro life people here, and those who use it (and trans stuff) as a deflection whenever things get sticky.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You know, if you have decided the question of when personhood attaches is an easy one, you're not thinking about things very hard."

If you think it's not easy in some cases, you're not thinking about things very hard.

[windycityattorney]

The problem is one of shifting goal posts. Because outlawing abortion from the very early stages isn't stopping the pro life movement from being satisfied and pushing for more laws. Now they want to go after contraception as well. Would ya'll give half the population a damn break? These are our daughters, sisters and wives we are talking about here. You don't want them to abort; but also don't want them to take preventative measures to prevent pregnancy either? Seriously?

Or just admit its not about abortion or pregnancy... but perhaps control? Perhaps a bit of mandating a religious preference of purity and virginity on the whole world? I don't think people are being honest about their motivations or intentions here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I said, it's easy in some cases. Prior to conception is pretty easy. Just prior to birth, or contra Ralph Northam, just after birth, is also pretty easy. So maybe give the babies a damn break?

But of course, as the Northam example bears out, it's not about the mother's body, it's about the killing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because outlawing abortion from the very early stages isn't stopping the pro life movement from being satisfied and pushing for more laws."

Just as legalizing abortion in the very early stages isn't someplace the pro-abortion movement is satisfied with, and they keep pushing for elective abortion right up until the moment birth, and maybe just a smidge beyond.

[not guilty]

The question of when life or "personhood" begins is a metaphysical question, about which there are differing views. For example, those who take the book of Genesis literally (I don't) may take note of chapter 2, verse 7: "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (RSV)

The legal question is when the governmental interest in preserving fetal life outweighs the pregnant woman's liberty interest in personal autonomy and privacy regarding carrying the pregnancy to term.

[Riva]

Ever heard of DNA? Enlighten me, according to the party of science, is there some time AFTER conception, that new DNA is infused into the developling life?

[Nelson]

“ Ever heard of DNA?”

DNA? Why do anti-abortionists think that’s even a meaningful argument, never mind the slam dunk they constantly portray it as.

A clump of cells, with human DNA or not, is medical waste unless it can sustain its own life.

Having DNA and being a person with rights are completely unrelated, save for the fact that a person with rights has human DNA and can sustain their own life and a pre-viable fetus cannot.

“ is there some time AFTER conception, that new DNA is infused into the developling life?”

What an irrelevant standard. No one is denying that DNA exists in the potential humans known as fetuses. Without viability, DNA is pointless. Basically it has the same characteristics as any other bits of DNA people shed every day: neither can sustain their own life.

[not guilty]

Riva, my tomcat has DNA. He is alive.

But he is by no means a human being, nor a person.

[Riva]

Well “Nelson,” every human being that has ever existed is a “clump of cells, with human DNA…” DNA is not an irrelevant standard. DNA is the sine qua non of being biologically human.

Now if you want an arbitrary standard that reduces human beings to “medical waste,” look no further than “personhood.” I suppose if your goal is to eliminate undesirable new borns, or anyone else for that matter, that’s your goal post.

And not sure what your absurd cat analogy proves NG, other than human beings differ from cats. The cat DNA defines your cat as a feline. Human DNA defines the life as human. Although there may be nine, the value of a cat life is not equivalent to a human life.

And, I note, both of you avoided my question. Because the answer is obvious and the implications damn the pro-abortionist arguments.

[Nelson]

“ DNA is not an irrelevant standard”

Human DNA does nothing to establish whether something is alive or a person (personhood, for an ignoramus like you: https://legalclarity.org/what-does-personhood-mean-in-the-eyes-of-the-law/)

The only relevance DNA has in this context is to establish that the organism (whoch may or may not become a living being at some point in the future) is a potential human, as opposed to a potential tree or a potential dog or a potential fish. That is the only thing that DNA signifies.

“ And, I note, both of you avoided my question. Because the answer is obvious and the implications damn the pro-abortionist arguments.”

We both directly addressed your questions, you just don’t like the answers.

You first asked, “Ever heard of DNA?”, and I pointed out that the existence of human DNA does nothing to establish whether a potential human (also called a zygote, then an fetus, then a baby) is an actual human being or merely a potential human being. It only establishes that the potential organism is a potential human. Viability is what matters, not the existence of human DNA.

For your edification, your post is an example of pure sophistry.

Your second question was, “is there some time AFTER conception, that new DNA is infused into the developling life?”, which is just pure idiocy. No one has ever suggested that human DNA doesn’t exist from the moment an egg is fertilized.

You are begging the question (a logical fallacy most anti-abortionists engage in) by pretending the existence of DNA is an irrefutable and complete indication of a human being. It isn’t. It’s merely an indication that one day, roughly nine months in the future, there is a possibility (roughly 27% at conception) that the fertilized egg will become a living, breathing human being.

Viability is the first point in fetal development when there is a non-zero chance that the fetus could survive independent of the womb. That is the first point where it is reasonable to claim that the fetus is a personi.

[not guilty]

Riva, don't be ridiculous. When I clip my fingernails, each clipping contains (human) DNA. Does that mean that each clipping is a human being?

When a fertilized ovum naturally fails to implant and is washed away with the menstrual flow, is that ovum a human being?

An acorn is not an oak tree. A tadpole is not a frog. A kitten in utero is not a cat. And a blastocyst is not a human being. Even though each contains DNA.

[not guilty]

And Riva, if you and my cat were both drowning and I could save only one of you, he would win hands down.

[Riva]

Nelson, there is no sophistry in asserting the indisputable fact that a new, unique human life is created upon conception. That this developing life could not initially survive outside the womb does not make the new life any less human. Any more than the reality that any human could not survive in certain environments on this planet without some protective clothing.

What is sophistry is the attempt to use the legalism of "personhood" to define away the humanity of the new life in order to justify extermination. Sophistry is too mild a term. It is a sick, soulless concept.

And I will do NG a great service by merely ignoring his further descent into mad absurdities.

[not guilty]

"And I will do NG a great service by merely ignoring his further descent into mad absurdities."

IOW, Riva is crying "Uncle!"
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2011/02/21/origins-of-cry-uncle/

[Nelson]

“ Nelson, there is no sophistry in asserting the indisputable fact that a new, unique human life is created upon conception”

That is pretty much the perfect example of sophistry.

https://www.thoughtco.com/sophistry-definition-1691974

Life beginning at conception (and, to double down on stupidity, that personhood isn’t a distinct and separate issue than a fertilized egg being a potential life) is a belief, and not a very well-supported or convincing belief at that, since roughly 90% of people reject it.

Claiming that it’s an indisputable truth is begging the question, but using it as the basis for an absolute statement about when life begins is sophistry in its purest form.

“ That this developing life could not initially survive outside the womb does not make the new life any less human.”

Less human? Agreed. A himan being? No.

DNA says that, if it becomes viable, it will be a viable human. But that isn’t even the likely outcome at fertilization, never mind the certain outcome.

DNA doesn’t make it a human being or a separate individual. If it has not achieved the minimum requirement for independent existence, it isn’t an individual or a human being. It is a developing fetus that may, one day, become a human being.

Individual rights belong to individuals. A pre-viable fetus isn’t capable of being an individual because it cannot exist independently.

“ Any more than the reality that any human could not survive in certain environments on this planet without some protective clothing.”

A pre-viable fetus couldn’t survive in ANY environment. Literally any tome separated from the womb would be impossible for a fetus to exist in. The fact that you can find a scenario which a human being can’t survive doesn’t make any point whatsoever because every living organism has environments that they can’t survive.

Living organisms also have many, many environments that they can survive. A pre-viable fetus does not. None. Zero. A pre-viable fetus is incapable of life outside the womb. Period. Full stop.

This is yet another example of sophistry. A human being, to be alive, has to be capable of independent survival.

And to cut off yet another anti-abortion sophistry, independent doesn’t mean they have to be able to feed, clothe, and house themselves. It literally means that they merely have to sit there in a perfect environment and sustain their own existence. Literally the lowest of low bars.

“ What is sophistry is the attempt to use the legalism of "personhood" to define away the humanity of the new life in order to justify extermination.”

Literally no one has ever denied their humanity. If they manage to achieve viability, everyone agrees that they will become a human being.

And yes, personhood is a legal concept. It is also a philosophical and moral concept, but philosophy and morality are both arbitrary and personal, so they should never be forced upon anyone else.

If you have to ignore complex and objective standards, relying only on morality and emotion to make your argument, your argument has no substance nor validity.

Anti-abortion logic relies on a basis of “life begins at conception” and “abortion is murder” and that those things are so unassailably true that the government is justified in forcing those who don’t agree to behave as if they do.

Polling constantly finds this to be an extremist, fringe position. Even a majority of people who *personally* agree, reject criminalizing abortion. Those who are uncertain or reject the idea that life inarguably begins at conception are even more supportive of legal abortion. Which is why “abortion should be illegal in all or most cases” constantly polls at 1/2 or less of “abortion should be legal in all or most cases”. That includes a majority of every religious tradition except evangelical Christians.

Your beliefs aren’t convincing. Your inability to distinguish between what you believe and what is objectively true make a two-dimensional worldview that lacks depth and substance.

If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. But you don’t get to force your extremist views on everyone else.

[Riva]

No Nelson, it is not "extremist" to note the biological, scientific reality that life begins at conception. It is extremist to categorize some humans as "not viable" or not "persons" merely to justify their extermination. This sick logic justifies infanticide and worse. Spare me your sick protection and have the intellectual integrity to admit the truth.

[Riva]

Easy to answer little communist girl that never smiled. A new human life comes into being, not unsurprisingly, at conception. Now, it is true that many on the left would like to redefine human life so as to facilitate extermination. Some lunatics would even extend that period after a baby's birth.

[windycityattorney]

So what's the argument that preventing conception is also objectionable and should be made illegal??

[Riva]

Aren't you the guy who was whining about shifting goal posts? What does contraception have to do with the sick concept of "personhood" that makes certain developing human lives expendable?

[Josh R]

What should the punishment be for a woman who has an abortion? What if she hires a doctor to kill her toddler?

[not guilty]

Josh R, when a fetus fetishist is asked that question, he can't decide whether to shit or go blind.

[Nelson]

“ A new human life comes into being, not unsurprisingly, at conception.”

That is the most question-begging thing I think I’ve ever seen here.

You are assuming the conclusion that human life isn’t dependent upon viability. Which is, at best, a contestable proposition. It certainly isn’t something so unimpeachably true that everyone has to live their lives by it.

“ Now, it is true that many on the left would like to redefine human life so as to facilitate extermination.”

No, roughly 2/3 of people (and a more than half of every religious tradition except evangelical Christians) believe that abortion should be legal. And 90% of Americans reject the idea that life begins at conception because that is an extremist, illogical belief that isn’t factually accurate.

“ Some lunatics would even extend that period after a baby's birth.”

No, wingnut. That’s murder and virtually everyone rejects the idea that murder isn’t illegal and immoral. And psychopaths aren’t very common.

[Riva]

It's not begging the question. It's biological reality. A new life, with its own unique DNA is created at conception. That the new life will develop and grow, does not make the life any less human. All humans grow and develop. Viability doesn't define the developing life as human. The inherent biology of the life defines it as human. Whatever anyone may "believe" does not change that reality, any more than a furry believing he is a cat makes him a cat. (assuming of course, only for the sake of argument, that your silly numbers are accurate)

And finally and unfortunately, it is quite inaccurate that "everyone rejects the idea" of "after birth abortions" a/k/a murder. Many Sick leftists have advanced the concept of "personhood" to justify the practice. Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Michael Tooley, and Peter Singer reason that newborns are not yet “persons” in the moral sense, and therefore that killing them could be philosophically comparable to abortion. “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?, " by Giubilini and Minerva, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was a real page turner.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, roughly 2/3 of people (and a more than half of every religious tradition except evangelical Christians) believe that abortion should be legal."

Look, will you just stop saying "abortion should be legal"? There is no "abortion" simple. There's abortion at 1 week, there's abortion at 9 months, people don't have the same opinions about abortion at different stages of development.

You ask people if abortion should be legal, they assume you mean, legal at all, under some set of circumstances, and, yeah, basically everybody agrees it should be legal in SOME cases.

But almost everybody can also identify cases where they think it shouldn't be legal, and "abortion should be legal" is a phrase deliberately shorn of all nuance and circumstance to blur that fact away.

[Don Nico]

You sure know a lot about wanking

[Nelson]

Not babies, not killing.

[hobie]

I was wondering who was going to strain themselves silly and bring in abortion. And the winner is Amos 'Whatabouit' Arch

[Frank Drackman]

Abortion's why you have your house in the hood.

[hobie]

Cheap mansions don't make themselves, Frankie. You gotta break a few eggs (fetuses) to get them.

[bloocow2]

"why would they target someone without being fairly sure and risk the fallout"

What fallout? Trump's fans (including a few in this thread!) will support him and his decisions literally no matter what they are. He could blow up dozens of boats, with no evidence (beyond his say-so) that they were carrying drugs, and his cheerleaders will continue cheering. He doesn't care about anyone else, so I'm not sure what "fallout" there could possibly be.

Also, this might be hard to believe, but occasionally the US military makes mistakes. See, for example, weddings getting bombed in Afghanistan during the Obama administration. So it's not exactly beyond plausibility that they could have targeted an actual fishing boat (not that we'll ever know for sure, because the only evidence is their say-so)

Also, how about you try to stay on the topic of this specific thing, instead of trying to tu quoque your way to making a point about... abortion? What does that have to do with this?

[loki13]

*shurg*

If you've seen the videos, you'll notice that one of them looks very different. In one of them, the boat isn't moving. There only appears to be a single person on it. It's grainy, so of course that isn't dispositive, but still, it's interesting.

And then later, we learn that not only has Columbia specifically claimed that vessel, they said that it was a disabled (not moving) fishing vessel with just a fisherman on it that was broadcasting that it was disabled right before we murdered the fisherman.

Now, this would be easy to for us to disprove, since we keep saying we know each and every one of these bad hombres on each boat and where they came from. Here, we have one country (which was an ally) saying- "Hey, you blew up our boat and murdered an innocent national from our country!" So we could simply say- "Nope. It was El Bad Homre, from Venzuela, and the boat left Caracas at 13:10 and was on this specific route and X."

Did we? Naw. Of course not! We haven't even told any of our own Congress that! Instead, Trump throws a fit, attacks the leader of Columbia, and cuts off ties and financial commitments.

Totally the actions of someone who doesn't make things up and then tries to bully his way out of it. Besides, I'm sure that at this point, we have a long track record of this administration being completely honest, transparent, and not lying, right?

Right?

[David Nieporent]

He could blow up dozens of boats, with no evidence (beyond his say-so) that they were carrying drugs, and his cheerleaders will continue cheering.

Don't be ridiculous; he won't have no evidence. He'll photoshop the term "MS-13" onto the side of the boats.

[bernard11]

why would they target someone without being fairly sure

Because they are careless and incompetent and don't give a shit anyway. It makes a nice story (from their POV) so who cares.

And when they are caught killing an innocent fisherman Trump throws a shit fit. What a disaster of a human being.

[David Nieporent]

"Whatabout abortion?" might be the fucking stupidest argument ever in defense of random drone attacks on civilians.

[Nelson]

It’s about the stupidest fucking argument for anything. Abortion isn’t even wrong, let alone murder.

Anti-abortion arguments are illogical and idiotic from the jump. Using irrational beliefs about abortion to justify irrational beliefs about murdering people on boats is par for the cultural-conservative course.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Abortion isn’t even wrong..."

Even abortion of a healthy baby, when not done to protect the health of the woman, and the woman is in labor?

[Nelson]

No, asshole. And I defy you to find a place where that has ever happened.

This sort of maximalist comeback to any pro-choice statement just shows how deeply dishonest anti-abortionists are.

Until viability, any and all abortions objectively aren’t wrong, regardless of why the decision was made. Not in amy way, shape, or form.

There is no logical way to make a moral or ethical argument against abortion unless you call upon religion or the existence of a soul. And that reasoning is only valid for the person who chooses to believe it, no one else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol.

At what point in the process do arguments against abortion or killing babies require calling upon religion or the existence of a soul?

Somewhere in the birth canal? A week after birth? A year?

[Nelson]

When the argument against abortion requires calling a potential baby an actual baby, every part of the argument is faith-based. And irrational. And illogical. And wrong.

Plus, of course, the vast majority of the anti-abortion movement is based in religious (particularly evangelical) objections. Take away the faith-based objectors and the anti-abortion movement becomes a couple dozen people and the fanatical right that opposes anything with support from the center-right, leftward.

Claiming that the anti-abortion movement isn’t predominantly a faith-based movement is, clearly and obviously, nonsense.

[not guilty]

"Plus, of course, the vast majority of the anti-abortion movement is based in religious (particularly evangelical) objections. Take away the faith-based objectors and the anti-abortion movement becomes a couple dozen people and the fanatical right that opposes anything with support from the center-right, leftward."

Actually the nexus between evangelical Protestants and fervent opposition to abortion rights is a bit more complicated. (The Catholic man-boy lust association Church has consistently opposed abortion being safe and legal.)

The radical religious right's agenda has had more to with preserving segregated schools than with opposition to abortion. Joshua Holland explained on billmoyers.com in 2014:

Conventional wisdom holds that the rise of the religious right as a political force to be reckoned with during the 1970s and 1980s was driven by conservative Christians’ intense opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. But Dartmouth College’s Randall Balmer writes that “the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny.” He notes that “it wasn’t until 1979 — a full six years after Roe — that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but …. because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.”

When Roe was first decided, most of the Southern evangelicals who today make up the backbone of the anti-abortion movement believed that abortion was a deeply personal issue in which government shouldn’t play a role. Some were hesitant to take a position on abortion because they saw it as a “Catholic issue,” and worried about the influence of Catholic teachings on American religious observance.

https://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

Baptist Press provides more detail about the Southern Baptist Convention's support of abortion rights during the 1970s: https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/southern-baptists-transformed-as-u-s-grappled-with-roe-v-wade/

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), wherein SCOTUS upheld the Internal Revenue Service's revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination, provoked a significantly greater backlash from evangelical Protestants than Roe v. Wade.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When the argument against abortion requires calling a potential baby an actual baby, every part of the argument is faith-based."

Question begging and a non-sequitur in the same sentence. Neat!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It’s about the stupidest fucking argument for anything. Abortion isn’t even wrong, let alone murder.

This is the sort of thing the troll-ish response invites.

The "Dem" concern for unlawful lethal force becomes about abortion. And, then some comment makes a general comment, so it's about if abortion is never wrong etc.

[Nelson]

It was the fringe-right poster that brought up abortion. I merely pointed out that abortion isn’t, by any objective standard, wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

First of all, WHAT objective standard? You've got some secret objective standard of morality that circumvents the is/ought problem in philosophy?

Second, not ever? Not even after delivering a live infant is as easy as killing it? Until the cord is cut, the woman can kill the baby on a whim? Or maybe until the brat is weaned?

I can understand the arguments that abortion isn't any big deal in early pregnancy, when you really are dealing with barely more than a clump of cells brimming with potential. But I'm just blown away by the people who insist that it's no big deal even after viability.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not Nelson, but I'd suggest consider he may not have the maximalist thesis you're so outraged at.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now you're calling Nelson a liar? Wow.

[Nelson]

No, he’s saying that Brett (and you, above) are dishonestly trying to put something I’ve never supported (and that the vast majority of pro-choice people don’t support) onto me.

Maximalist counterexamples, especially one as specious as “pro-choice people support voluntary abortions, even after birth”, is just proof that anti-abortionists know they are trying to force their arbitrary moral beliefs on everyone else without objective logic no objective support.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then maybe you should write, "Abortion isn’t even [always] wrong, let alone [always] murder."

Because, while we can disagree about early pregnancy, almost everyone agrees that post-viability abortion IS wrong, IS murder, unless there's simply no way for both the mother and baby to both live.

And yet, a number of states officially permit elective abortion well past viability, and a larger number de facto permit it by having "health" exceptions that allow abortion just on the basis that being upset over giving birth is a mental health issue, or the normal risks of a normal pregnancy being enough medical hazard to justify abortion.

For instance, in Alaska, elective abortion right up to birth, without parental notification, and you don't even need to be a doctor to perform them.

The pro-"choice" movement is just as capable of holding extreme views, and putting them into legal force when the opportunity arises, as the pro-life movement is.

[Nelson]

“ Then maybe you should write, "Abortion isn’t even [always] wrong, let alone [always] murder."”

I didn’t. You, literally, added the “always”. Which is dishonest, like anti-abortionists invariably are about the subject.

“ Because, while we can disagree about early pregnancy, almost everyone agrees that post-viability abortion IS wrong, IS murder, unless there's simply no way for both the mother and baby to both live.”

Wrong? Yes, I agree. Murder? That’s the instinct to maximalist rhetoric that anti-abortionists have to indulge in because their core argument lacks logical and objective support.

But my point remains that pre-viability, there is nothing wrong with abortion. Post-viability it isn’t as cut-and-dried as you claim, since there is a valid (albeit, in my mind, weak) argument that until a fetus has been delivered, there is always a possibility that it won’t be capable of independent existence (which is the minimum standard for personhood and rights).

“ And yet, a number of states officially permit elective abortion well past viability”

Correct. In order to protect the right to a pre-viability abortion, some states have gone for protecting an absolute right to abortion so there isn’t any wiggle room for fanatics to try to force their narrow moral beliefs on everyone else.

“ just on the basis that being upset over giving birth is a mental health issue, or the normal risks of a normal pregnancy being enough medical hazard to justify abortion.”

You keep making my point about the dishonesty of anti-abortionists for me. This is a gross mischaracterization of a valid exception. You are claiming that mental or physical health of the mother isn’t ever valid, so it shouldn’t be included in the law. You are claiming that it’s pretextual, which is absolutely untrue. Could it happen? Of course. People abuse legal loopholes all the tome. Is it something that will happen frequently (or even rarely)? Not likely.

“ For instance, in Alaska, elective abortion right up to birth, without parental notification, and you don't even need to be”

Once again, the maximalist argument. Contrast that to the numerous red states that have de facto banned abortion without any exceptions, even for the maximalist situation of rape or incest. I would also point out that Alaska is far from some liberal hotspot, so it’s not like conservatives don’t also support legal abortion. It’s just a fanatical fringe of conservatives (cultural conservatives, who wish to impose their beliefs on everyone, as opposed to social conservatives, who wish to live their own lives by conservative moral beliefs) who want to use force to impose morals.

“ The pro-"choice" movement is just as capable of holding extreme views”

Absolutely. Every issue has extremists, it’s just that the pro-choice side clusters around the consensus and the anti-abortionists cluster around the extreme.

“ and putting them into legal force when the opportunity arises”

So too much freedom is bad, but no freedom is good? On the pro-choice side you have people who want to protect an individual’s right to make their own decisions about their own body and medical treatment and extend those rights into scenarios that virtually never occur (elective abortion post-viability). On the anti-abortion side you have people who want to force people to act in a minority-held “moral” way and deny those rights in an overwhelmingly common scenario (first-trimester abortions).

One of those two is the fanatical, totalitarian, rights-denying side. One of them is the rights-affirming, anti-government-force side.

You wish to paint this as a valid politics-only issue. It isn’t. It’s a fundamental rights issue, as well as a government force and morality-as-valid-basis-for-laws issue.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, he’s saying that Brett (and you, above) are dishonestly trying to put something I’ve never supported (and that the vast majority of pro-choice people don’t support) onto me."

Really? Because when I asked you if abortion under a maximalist circumstance (elective abortion by a woman in labor) was wrong, you responded, "no, asshole."

[not guilty]

"I can understand the arguments that abortion isn't any big deal in early pregnancy, when you really are dealing with barely more than a clump of cells brimming with potential. But I'm just blown away by the people who insist that it's no big deal even after viability."

Whether abortion is morally right or wrong is a question distinct from whether the government should prohibit it. One is a question of individual conscience and values; the latter is a question of law and politics. Opinions about abortion have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile, but an authoritarian government is anathema to everyone.

I am firmly pro-choice before viability, but I disapprove of abortion at any stage absent extraordinary circumstances such as conception resulting from rape or incest, a serious threat to maternal health or a fetal abnormality inconsistent with having a meaningful life.

But then, my own opinion does not matter one whit unless and until a female facing or contemplating pregnancy asks me for my point of view. And in that case, what weight she thinks my opinion deserves is entirely up to her.

(And Brett's bugbear of "postnatal abortion" is not abortion at all -- it is homicide.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And Brett's bugbear of "postnatal abortion" is not abortion at all -- it is homicide."

NG slams his ipse dixit on the table.

[not guilty]

"NG slams his ipse dixit on the table."

TwelveInchPinhead, it is a matter of common knowledge that every U.S. state outlaws murder and manslaughter. That is too obvious to require citation.

Do you claim that any state exempts the killing of a newborn infant from its homicide statutes? If so, which one(s)?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TwelveInchPinhead, it is a matter of common knowledge that every U.S. state outlaws murder and manslaughter."

Oh, you were speaking in a technical, legal sense. So, if a state included abortion in its murder statue, you would have said that abortion is murder.

My bad, I guess I didn't get that from your comment.

[not guilty]

A lawful abortion and a murder are mutually exclusive. Like red and green or a circle and a rectangle, one cannot be the other.

Some states, by statute, do count a fetus as a homicide victim, but typically exempt a woman's termination of her own pregnancy from operation of those statutes. The "born alive" rule regarding murder dates back to the common law of England.

But the murder of a newborn has been indistinguishable from the murder of an older victim since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Postnatal abortion is indeed homicide, but that doesn't stop a state from deliberately making sure that they won't learn of it when it happens.

NY had a law that required somebody to be present in post-viability abortions, to make sure that if a live delivery accidentally occurred, the baby would be taken care of rather than killed. They repealed it. And have killed every attempt to restore those protections.

[Nelson]

Gee, the anti-abortion attempt to pile unnecessary and onerous regulations on abortion got repealed? I wonder why.

The premise of that law is that a doctor who perform abortions wouldn’t act to save a living baby. It is an offensive and irrational premise for an unnecessary law.

It is predicated on the false and delusional belief that anyone who performs abortions isn’t capable of ethical or moral behavior. Such self-righteous and discriminatory moral arrogance has no place in the legal code.

[Magister]

Opinions about abortion have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile

I think that is not correct.

[not guilty]

I see and acknowledge your point, Magister. The antiabortion movement has its own domestic terrorism wing.

But it is not extreme opinions killing physicians and clinic personnel -- it is gunshots and explosives. As Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland wrote in The History of English Law 474-75 (2d ed. 1968):

[I]t is hard for us to acquit the ancient law of that unreasoning instinct that impels the civilised man to kick, or consign to eternal perdition, the chair over which he has stumbled. But law which would not confess to sanctioning this instinct still finds grave difficulties in its way if it endeavors to detect and appreciate the psychical element in guilt and innocence. "The thought of man shall not be tried, for the devil himself knoweth not the thought of man": thus at the end of the middle ages spoke Brian C.J. in words that might well be the motto for the early history of the criminal law.

As quoted in United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F.Supp. 485, 490 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).

[Magister]

The size and extremity of the opinions in the antiabortion do fire up and support those who commit the violence.

And "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a popular slogan, easily made more specific that "guns don't kill abortion advocates and providers, antiabortion extremists kill abortion advocates and providers".

[not guilty]

Guns don't kill people.

Gunshot wounds kill people.

[Nelson]

“ First of all, WHAT objective standard?”

Viability. Once a fetus is capable of independent survival, you can start to call it a person or a baby. Until then it’s just a potential person.

And potential isn’t actuality.

“ You've got some secret objective standard of morality that circumvents the is/ought problem in philosophy?”

Not at all. I have always asserted that morality, absent anything else, should never be the basis for laws.

Morality is arbitrary and individual. Until you have a conflict of rights between two viable, actual, capable-of-independent-existence people, there is no valid, objective opposition to abortion that doesn’t involve redefining “potential” to mean “actual”.

“ Second, not ever? Not even after delivering a live infant is as easy as killing it? Until the cord is cut, the woman can kill the baby on a whim? Or maybe until the brat is weaned?”

As I said above, this go-to maximalist argument that takes literally the most unlikely, almost-never scenario and pretends it’s common or the belief of the vast majority of pro-choice supporters is about as dishonest as it gets. Which is par for the course, since anti-abortion folks are as dishonest as they come.

I have consistently and constantly made this point: the earliest point that it is rational, objective, and libertarian to oppose abortion is viability. Any point before that requires imposing an arbitrary and personal moral code on everyone else without objective logic to support it.

Potential and actual are teo very different things.

“ But I'm just blown away by the people who insist that it's no big deal even after viability.”

I’m not one of those people, so I can’t make that argument to you. On the flipside, asserting that it IS a big deal before viability, such a big deal that the government is justified in using force to prevent it, is equally baffling.

Viability is the dividing line, and anti-abortionists make specious and irrational arguments about viability because they know in their hearts that 24 weeks (or if you prefer the earliest point a fetus has been delivered and survived, 21 weeks) is the first point at which their moral beliefs have objective support.

[not guilty]

"It was the fringe-right poster that brought up abortion. I merely pointed out that abortion isn’t, by any objective standard, wrong."

I am a strong supporter of abortion rights prior to viability of the fetus, but I'm not at all sure that the (moral) rightness or wrongness of abortion is objectively verifiable. Each individual's views on that topic are necessarily subjective.

That is one reason that the decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term should be reserved to the pregnant woman, ideally with input from her health care provider and such other persons as she chooses -- for example, the father, family, friends, and such qualified non-medical professionals as she desires.

[Commenter_XY]

One problem NG: This is in international waters. Different rules apply when the NatSec card is played.

You have to wonder about the druggies themselves. They have to know they're taking an enormous risk, yet they continue to try. I personally don't waste a lot of mental energy worrying about druggies carrying poison to the US to kill our people. We have tens of thousands of ODs annually.

Sooner or later, the cartels will respond. They have billions.

[not guilty]

Commenter_XY, what lawful authority do you contend authorizes the U.S. military's killing of suspected drug traffickers here?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the POTUS (under the constitution) has wide latitude to determine a) what is a national security threat, and, b) what to do about it. Understand, I am not wild about plinking boats in intl waters. I would like the administration to be more forthcoming on how they knew these boats were druggies.

Suppose VEN or COL decide to plink boats themselves in intl waters, or inside their territorial waters. There are plenty of US flagged yachts out in the Caribbean.

I worry greatly about the blowback. The cartels have billions, and they will respond. For instance, if some yahoo built a hunting stand in sight of AF-1 in Palm Beach, what do you think a well organized and funded group like the cartels could do?

[Martinned]

Tl;dr, Trump can do whatever he wants.

[Commenter_XY]

I would not say that. Rather, I would say the POTUS gets a grace period until Congress asks questions.

[David Nieporent]

What language of the constitution mentions a grace period?

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure that's the N&P clause, since the 'grace period' is pursuant to legislation, the 1973 War Powers act.

[Bwaaah]

It appears that any U.S. President can get away with pretty much anything that doesn't piss off too many constituents at once. For all the alleged concerns about laws and civil rights and due process and historical conventions, in the theater of public opinion, you're defending drug traffickers. So your position, quite effectively, is, "[Blah] [blah] [blah]. I support the drug traffickers."

Good luck with all that [blah] [blah] [blah].

[Commenter_XY]

You nailed it.

[windycityattorney]

Nah its not about supporting 'drug traffickers.' What a stupid thing to say on a legal blog. That is a fox news simplification of the issue. It's about expanding executive power to designate common criminals as 'terrorists' and more broadly about the laws of war.

This is a new step on the slippery slope so of course its going to be analyzed through a legal lens. Plenty of retired military JAG have questioned the legality of these strikes. It's not a popularity contest. Or one of polling. "Welp 52% of Americans believe nuking Colombia is a good way to stop the flow of cocaine into America so it's fine to drop a nuclear bomb on Bogota to let them know were serious." What a silly thing to argue. [and yes I am intentionally using a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum to make a point.]

[JRipplefireEsquire]

I see Congress is investigating Hezbollah laundering Maduro drug related money. So if the 2001 AUMF permits using the military to attack those who harbored our 9/11 attackers, might that extend to Hezbollah? Hezbollah works with solid support from Iran. Iran did allow some 9/11 perps to travel within its country and was adjudicated civilly liable to 9/11 victims in federal court. So while the nexus is a stretch it's arguably a stretch to legality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I credit the USSS for finding it, but that hunting stand most likely was a poacher using the noise of (any) aircraft overhead to mask a gunshot.

No shot heard, no shot reported, warden doesn't know poacher was there.

Besides, what would a .308 bullet -- or a dozen -- into the belly of a 747 actually do? I'm not encouraging this, but is there anything vulnerable there to hit?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was wrong -- it appears to be a treestand with a direct line of sight on the staircase that Trump would use to get on and off the airplane. I trust that someone in the USSS climbed up there and verified the the line of sight, but this doesn't look good.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fbi-investigates-hunting-stand-sight-line-trumps-air-force-one-exit-area-palm-beach-airport

[SRG2]

POTUS (under the constitution) has wide latitude to determine a) what is a national security threat,

What section of the Constitution specifically gives him that latitude?

[Commenter_XY]

Section 2

[SRG2]

Be specific. What actual words?

[not guilty]

The President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed contains no international waters exception.

[David Nieporent]

the POTUS (under the constitution) has wide latitude to determine a) what is a national security threat, and, b) what to do about it.

Really. Do you get that from the fact that the constitution assigns to Congress the power to declare war, or from the fact that the constitution assigns to Congress the power to make rules for the military? Or from the fact that the constitution assigns to Congress the power to make rules for calling forth the militia? Or from the fact that the constitution assigns to Congress the power to define and punish crimes committed on the high seas? Or from the fact that the constitution assigns to Congress the power to make rules concerning the capture of the enemy?

[not guilty]

Not to mention the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, § 8, which is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress, but extends Congressional authority as well to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

That embraces all Article II powers of the executive branch, including the Commander-in-chief role.

[bernard11]

You have to wonder about the druggies themselves.

On what basis do you call them druggies? Trump's say-so? Implicit in many of your comments, including this one, is an absurd trust in his truthfulness.

[David Nieporent]

Same basis that he had for calling Abrego Garcia a gangbanger: that his false god said so.

[David Nieporent]

Different rules apply when the NatSec card is played.

Are you speaking as a regular attorney or a military attorney when you make that claim?

[ReaderY]

The President of Columbia has claimed the United States killed a fisherman, not a drug boat.

In response, the United States has cut off all aid to Columbia.

[Martinned]

And, apparently, changed the name of the country.
(I'm not criticising you. But it would be nice if Trump knew how to spell.)

[Frank Drackman]

and Lee Harvey Oswald spelled his name wrong when he ordered his Mannlincher-Carcano

[Sarcastr0]

Trump said US intelligence confirmed the vessel was "loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics."

I'm no expert, that doesn't track; Fentanyl is made in Mexico and China, and both sources come across the Mexican border.

They just say shit, and MAGA enthusiastically takes them at their word and gets mad anyone would question a bare assertion from government.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, are you an expert on fentanyl production worldwide, too?

[Sarcastr0]

So when I said I'm no expert, that wasn't me saying I was an expert!

Here are some people writing about it:

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10400

Or

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-008-20%20Fentanyl%20Flow%20in%20the%20United%20States_0.pdf

[jay.tee]

Don’t forget our northern neighbors! Production has shifted there as Mexico and China come under increasing scrutiny and pressure.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fentanyl-produced-in-canada-1.7275200

[Nelson]

Production hasn’t shifted anywhere. Trump and his Liar’s Brigade claim that fentanyl is pouring over the northern border, but there’s no data to support that claim (par for the Trump course). And even Trump’s government doesn’t claim it’s being made there, just that the drugs from China are being smuggled in there.

[jay.tee]

I guess you don’t read too good? Note I linked to a CBC article that quoted Canadian sources.

[loki13]

Out of curiosity, Commenter_XY, why do you assume everyone else is as incurious about the world and as trusting of the government as you are?

It doesn't take an expert to understand the basics of how drug trafficking works. I mean ... you know that "tiny boats from Venezuela" isn't actually how drugs* are really coming to America, right?**

This could be done by either thinking about it for a second, or ... you know, educating yourself with sources other than administration propaganda.

*Drugs, here, are cocaine that is largely grown in Columbia, then shipped overland to Venezuela. The boats don't actually go to America, but to other islands in the Caribbean or to Mexico.
**For values exceeding 99%.

[not guilty]

I suspect that Donald Trump farted and blew Commenter_XY's brains out.

[Commenter_XY]

That was pretty funny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fishing in a go-fast boat is like cropdusting in a F-15.

The wake alone would scare away the fish.

[bernard11]

Is there no way to stop the boat once you get where you are going?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No commercial fisherman could live with the fuel bill, no recreational fisherman the spartan accommodations.

They have a plane hull and are narrow, I would not want to be in one stopped on the open ocean. If you know anything about boats, you understand how badly it would be rolling.

You're not going to get the swimsuit off the cute new secretary if her head is in a bucket (vomiting).

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I'm just hunting with my Jeep-mounted .50 cal machine gun.
Those are not fishermen!

[Riva]

Ask Obama you blithering idiot.

[not guilty]

Ask Obama what?

[Riva]

You asked the question. "Murder is prohibited by Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918. What has become of the duty to disobey an unlawful order?" Obama made a name for himself with drone strikes resulting in muliple deaths and many collateral civilian casualties. Ask him.

And ask Biden too, or whoever was in charge. On second thought, ask Obama about both admiminstrations.

[Frank Drackman]

and taking out a certain Saudi fugitive in Pock-E-Ston

[Martinned]

I gather that the survivors of these attacks have already been put on a plane to Colombia or Ecuador. Wouldn't want them sticking around so that people might ask them inconvenient questions, would we?

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe they will find new employment. Perhaps employment that doesn't go boom. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter tries the pivot from wanting them dead to letting them go.

For all his smugging, he does not stick the landing.

[hobie]

Apparently we now know the content of every boat and the character of every man. I now expect a 100% interdiction rate at every drug crossing in America. Daily explosions and executions all across our southern border.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Carry a shotgun into a bank. Tell me how it ends.

[hobie]

No one is surprised that executions thrill Ed.

[Frank Drackman]

An Execution is what started Christianity.

[SRG2]

Get shot in a bank and the cops say he had a shotgun - with no evidence. Dr Ed "but he was carrying a shotgun! The police said so! Trust the police!"

[jay.tee]

hobie, that raises an important point: has anyone read about how we’re identifying and selecting targets?

If the intel is accurate, it can probably be used for law enforcement purposes, depending on provenance, and we can be more effective without the “shock and awe.”

[SRG2]

as anyone read about how we’re identifying and selecting targets?

Here you go

[hobie]

HaHa!

[jay.tee]

Thanks, but I’m guessing the administration isn’t even looking that closely at the boat crews to discern hue of skin.

[Bunny495]

Time for the pinko commie creeps stop this shit. I have no problems with American military sinking a semi-submersible vessel suspected of smuggling drugs. Don't start any crap about these idiots being innocent fishermen.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/18/us-military-strike-survivors

[Estragon]

If these are drug smugglers deserving of the death penalty via execution by the military, why are we giving 2 survivors back to their home countries?

[Armchair]

As apparently irate NG gets, the US President has pretty large latitude with the use of the US military, especially in any international context that may touch on national security.

Clinton authorized a bombing campaign of both Kosovo and Bosnia. Notably the House of Representatives had votes which failed to approve the bombing of Kosovo. Clinton went ahead with it anyway. What's the legal authorization...??

Clinton also bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. No Congressional authorization. What's the legal rational? Investigations after the fact cast substantial doubt on the fact than any chemical weapons were illegally being produced there. In fact "Directly after the strike the Sudanese government demanded that the United Nations Security Council conduct an investigation of the site to determine if it had been used to produce chemical weapons or precursors. Such an investigation was opposed by the U.S., which has also blocked an independent laboratory analysis of the sample allegedly containing EMPTA." (Wikipedia)

Never good when an investigation is blocked.

Obama hasn't done much better. In 2011, he authorized military strikes on Libya. The House of Representatives voted for a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US forces. They certainly didn't APPROVE any such attacks. Obama basically ignored them. And Libya was not a national security threat at the time, by any realistic assessment

In light of all these "illegal" attacks, that nonetheless were supported, what are couple strikes on drug running boats? Ones which are arguably carrying fentanyl and its analogs, which can be as deadly as normal chemical weapons? Congress can vote to disapprove it, if it wants. But...they haven't chosen to do so.

The supposed alarm by NG and his colleagues rings falsely. Clinton and Obama have taken far more aggressive actions in the past, and paid no penalty for their actions. Indeed, they were supported.

If NG and his colleagues want true reform, then they need to enforce it, especially against their own party. But, if they just want another partisan beatstick, as I suspect is the truth, they'll call it out now with outrage, then be silent when their chosen one does the same or worse.

[not guilty]

IOW, whataboutism is all you've got, Armchair.

As that noted philosopher Ernest Tubb sang, Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNvQTe96pk&list=RDFwNvQTe96pk&start_radio=1

[Armchair]

I mean, if you want the legal justification, you have El-Shifa Pharm. v. United States.

But if you're only complaining when the other party does it...speaks volumes about your real position.

But go on. Criticize Clinton. Say Obama should have been impeached for far worse conduct, blatantly ignoring the House of Representatives and their resolution AGAINST Obama's conduct. If you're "actually" concerned with the issues. Demand that Obama should have been impeached.

[not guilty]

Armchair, if you are surprised that I am a partisan Democrat, you are likely the only regular reader of these threads who is. I have never pretended to be anything otherwise.

And FWIW, the D.C. Circuit inEl-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States did not determine that President Clinton's actions in ordering the bombing were lawful; indeed, that court did not reach the merits at all. It instead decided that a civil tort action for damages brought by the targeted company presents a political question which cannot be maintained in the federal courts. https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/07-5174/07-5174-1248589-2011-02-28.pdf?ts=1411134239

[not guilty]

Whataboutism is weak sauce. There is a reason that tu quoque is called a fallacy.

But if one is a MAGAt with nothing else to offer, at least grow the stones to say so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

House Speaker Mike Johnson continues his election denial in the case of newly elected Arizona Representative Adelita Grijalva. I have yet to see any journalist pose the question to Johnson whether he is breaking his oath of office. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Johnson—or even the full House—to effectually nullfy a new representative’s election for even a day, let alone for weeks, and to do it with transparent intent to effect a political outcome Johnson prefers. Doing that is not part of American Constitutionalism. Johnson is in violation of his oath.

I am surprised Grijalva puts up with Johnson’s antics. She should collect a few prestigious witnesses, go before some properly constituted federal magistrate in Arizona, present her election certification, and have the oath administered then and there. Then give Johnson the proof that she is a duly sworn member of Congress.

If the House wants to insist its power to make its own rules extends to barring for political effect a newly elected member’s admission, then take the case immediately to court in the federal DC Circuit. There the case will be reviewed under standards the Supreme Court laid down in the case Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). Grijalva should win easily.

If the Supreme Court is willing to reverse that precedent, then the American people need to know about that immediately.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When Grijalva goes to court in DC, she should ask the court for a writ of mandamus against the House, if she is not granted an outright victory because being sworn by someone other than Johnson or the full House is ruled impermissible.

[not guilty]

I would think the appropriate remedy would be a mandatory injunction directing the Speaker to swear her in. If that relief is denied, a direct appeal is available as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, so mandamus relief would not be available.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for the correction. Expert legal help always appreciated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

[OpinionsVary]

That was my guess as well but something similar actually played out early this year and the SCOTUS did step in.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/20/supreme-court-restores-maine-legislators-voting-rights-pending-outcome-of-appeal/?nab=0

Maine state representative Laurel Libby was barred from speaking and voting under the terms of a censure motion. She sued for violating her right to free speech and for depriving her constituents of their vote, seeking an injunction directing the state House to restore her voting and speakings. This was rejected at District and Circuit level, under legislative immunity. But the SCOTUS stepped in and granted the injunction.

We might speculate that speaking/voting rights of a sitting member are different from seating that member in the first place. And we might speculate that the Federal courts have more power to direct compliance of a State legislature over a Federal one.

But I think it is clear that the SCOTUS has made this a far more open question than it was in 2024.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And we might speculate that the Federal courts have more power to direct compliance of a State legislature over a Federal one."

I'd think the opposite, but the federal courts certainly have far less inclination do do so at the federal level.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Baker v Carr applies to STATE senates, but not to the US Senate.

[bernard11]

What a mystery.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, have you read Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486 (1969)? SCOTUS there opined:

In order to determine the scope of any "textual commitment" under Art. I, 5, we necessarily must determine the meaning of the phrase to "be the Judge of the Qualifications of its own Members." Petitioners argue that the records of the debates during the Constitutional Convention; available commentary from the post-Convention, pre-ratification period; and early congressional applications of Art. I, 5, support their construction of the section. Respondents insist, however, that a careful examination of the pre-Convention practices of the English Parliament and American colonial assemblies demonstrates that by 1787, a legislature's power to judge the qualifications of its members was generally understood [395 U.S. 486, 522] to encompass exclusion or expulsion on the ground that an individual's character or past conduct rendered him unfit to serve. When the Constitution and the debates over its adoption are thus viewed in historical perspective, argue respondents, it becomes clear that the "qualifications" expressly set forth in the Constitution were not meant to limit the long-recognized legislative power to exclude or expel at will, but merely to establish "standing incapacities," which could be altered only by a constitutional amendment. Our examination of the relevant historical materials leads us to the conclusion that petitioners are correct and that the Constitution leaves the House without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution.

395 U.S. at 521 [Footnote omitted.}

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Supreme Court was right that Powell had been duly elected and was qualified to serve until expelled - or replaced by his constituents.

I disagree with the Supreme Court insofar as it allows federal courts to meddle in the matter at all.

Each house has the power to "judge" the qualifications of its own members. This is an exception to Article III and allows each House of Congress, in qualification cases, to exercise judicial power.

The remaining question is whether there can be an appeal to the Art. III courts when a house of Congress exercises its judicial power to rule on its own members' qualifications. I doubt it, but apparently the Supreme Court doesn't follow my lead and allows an appeal to the regular courts.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Has the House as a whole made a judgment on Grijalva's qualifications? What is the issue about her qualifications?

[David Nieporent]

But Congress wasn't judging the qualifications of Adam Clayton Powell. Just as it isn't judging the qualifications of Grijalva. It was/is just refusing to seat them.

If Johnson's position were that Grijalva's election results were fraudulent, or that Grijalva doesn't meet the constitutional requirements for being a member of Congress, that would not be reviewable by the courts even if it were a blatant lie obvious to everyone. But Congress has no constitutional authority to refuse to seat someone Because Reasons.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought the same, Dr Ed. Each House is responsible for their own rules.

Grijalva has to wait until the dust settles from the shutdown. Once the shutdown is resolved, she can get sworn in. That is how it looks to me.

I personally think the shutdown ought to extend for some time. It will force more layoffs of non-essential fed bureau-critters.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does seem likely to drag on, since the absence of Washington Monument syndrome means the pain isn't mounting very fast outside of the bureaucracy.

[Commenter_XY]

The Administrative State Beast will be tamed, once and for all, Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we've gotten very good at disfunction.

Ignoring research funding being subborned or delayed. Ignoring paychecks to real military and civilians people being delayed.

The end of WIC is coming;
The holiday glut of air travel is coming;
ACA enrollment is coming Nov. 1 with rates currently set to skyrocket.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just bothered that we're sorting out the stuff the federal government does that's actually needed, from the stuff that's optional.

I can understand that makes you nervous, because given the huge deficits we're running, we might actually stop doing the stuff that's optional.

[Sarcastr0]

You and Commenter and the rest of the MAGA cheerleading corp have it abundantly clear you don’t want to know what government does or how to do things well.

It’s just resentment and you like to pretend it’s statescraft.

It’s the opposite but you are comfy so why not indulge your spite? Not like you will be effected.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't CARE if the government does well things we can't AFFORD to have it doing!

We have limited resources, we're going deeper into debt at an ever accelerating pace, we need the federal government to do less, much less, even if you want to pretend everything it does is worthwhile!

[Sarcastr0]

Pretending that nothing that has an immediate impact is an essential government function is stupid, period.

Your crisis yelling has always been false, Brett. You don't mind spending a ton of money on shit you like, you are not at all mad about giving billions to Venezuela because your man Trump is doing it. And you will never ever think about raising taxes.

It's a slippery slope argument, and it's only sincere because you're a master at fooling yourself.

You're the only person buying your bullshit at this point.

[Commenter_XY]

Actually Sarcastr0, Brett is not the only one buying the BS (your term). It would appear that POTUS Trump (and Congress majority) bought it too. And so did 77MM people who elected them.

Keep crying, it is amusing. Cry a little harder.

[jay.tee]

Your crisis yelling has always been false, Brett

No, we really do have a crisis. If we elected representatives with moral courage who actually attempted to ameliorate it, we’d be in a much more stable position.

As it is, interest payments on debt already constitute the third largest category of outlay and that’s still largely supported by low rates.

We spend far too much in far too many areas and receive far too little in return. Defense spending is a great example: one of its key metrics is total amount spent, not total value received.

And you will never ever think about raising taxes

The highest earners already pay a steadily increasing share of tax receipts. Increasing taxes without any binding, substantive restrictions on spending just means the status quo of more spending and more debt. It can also lead to boom and bust cycles of tax revenue, like California experiences.

EDIT:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

[David Nieporent]

you are not at all mad about giving billions to Venezuela because your man Trump is doing it.

Argentina?

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, the horror. Will cats and dogs start getting it on too, b/c of the shutdown?

The bad news for people like you is this POTUS has three more years to chop and hack away non-essential bureaucritters. I would call 2025 a good start; three more years to go to finish the job of taming the Administrative State Beast.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So in your view the executive has the power to do away with departments and agencies established by Congressional statute and funded through Congressional appropriations? Either that or you don't really care if the constitution and laws are followed, as long as you agree with the actions taken. You should stop all the bad faith arguing and just be honest about your authoritarianism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Aren't they no longer funded through Congressional appropriations?

[Commenter_XY]

Uh Alpheus, the fed govt is shut down. What appropriation? Therefore, difficult choices have to be made wrt the limited funds we have. And BTW, SCOTUS has already given POTUS Trump the green light before to RIF bureau-critters.

Remind me: Where is USAID today?

[loki13]

To be clear- when you say "difficult choices have to be made wrt the limited funds we have{,}" what do you mean, exactly?

Are you just freestylin'? Because while there are, in fact, some difficult choices that are allowed to be made, the whole problem that a lot of people are pointing out is that the Executive, in our system of government, DOES NOT GET TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES.

Let's start with basic concepts- Congress appropriates X money for Y thing. That does not mean that Congress has appropriated X money FOR THE GOVERNMENT, and that means Trump gets to do whatever he wants with it as his personal piggy bank.

Now, make it more concrete. Congress appropriates X money for military salaries, and that money goes to a specific account that must be spent on or before September 30, 2025. And that's it. No other money is to be appropriated. Period.

Trump has no claimed the ability to spend R&D money in a different DoD budget. Here's one (of many!) problems-
First, that money is for a specific purpose- it's a two year allocation, and this is R&D money for this year.
Next, there is no authorization to move that money, re-allocated that money, or take it from Congress appropriated it for.
Third, as soon as the money is put into the salary account, it should be held up as that account is restricted to ... you got it ... amounts until September 30, 2025, and Congress cannot authorize (and there cannot be payments from) that account since it was only authorized for that year. That whole "year" thing might ring a bell.

Look, we could keep going down the list- but this is the point. Trump is using this as an excuse to get rid of the power of the purse- the most fundamental power of Congress, and the main tool in the legislature's arsenal. If the Executive can declare taxes at any time (tariffs ARE taxes), he can raise revenue. And you're okay with the Executive not spending money he's ordered to and moving money around as the Executive pleases.

That's the trifecta. That means that there are no meaningful limits on the purse.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, there is no appropriation (yet). Nothing is funded. Full stop.

There are limited funds coming in from tariffs, taxes, fines and fees. In the absence of a Congressional appropriation, who decides how incoming funds are disbursed, for what purpose, and to whom?

Yes, the Executive.

Talk to Congress about the power of the purse. If they want the power, then open the purse (e.g. end the silly shutdown).

I don't think they will anytime soon, and I am fine with that. I am fine with Congress shutting down the fed gov't for months and months. We'll see many, many more RIFs of non-essential bureau-critters before the political pain becomes too great for Congress to bear.

By then, the deed is done; the Administrative state beast is tamed. The size and scope of fed gov't will have been reduced. That hasn't happened for nearly a century.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It will get interesting if the EBT cards don't refill on Nov 1st.

[Commenter_XY]

The EBT cards will refill. It is an automated process, not unlike SSA payments.

[Sarcastr0]

The shutdown has no actual bearing on whether the House can be gaveled in.

This is all about Epstein.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe about Epstein, certainly about clinging to a slightly larger majority as long as possible.

I think it's illegitimate, that she should be sworn in ASAP.

[not guilty]

"Grijalva has to wait until the dust settles from the shutdown. Once the shutdown is resolved, she can get sworn in. That is how it looks to me."

Do you have any authority for that proposition, XY?

[Commenter_XY]

Each House makes it own rules, NG. Team D is free to litigate the issue, and they have made the affirmative choice not to do so. Why?

This for that. End the shutdown, and Grijalva gets sworn in. That is politics. Politics is a dirty business. Probably not unlike criminal law.

FTR, I agree with Brett. Grijalva should be sworn in.

[not guilty]

XY, have you read Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486, 521 (1969), which I quoted upthread?

Or does the law even matter to you?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So when Dems are in the majority, and they decide that all Repubs are unqualified to hold seats in the House, you'll be okay with that? Dirty business and all.

[Commenter_XY]

Did I not write....FTR, I agree with Brett. Grijalva should be sworn in.

RIF (remember those commercials?)

[David Nieporent]

Grijalva has to wait until the dust settles from the shutdown. Once the shutdown is resolved, she can get sworn in. That is how it looks to me.

The shutdown is utterly unrelated to the issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The shutdown is utterly unrelated to the issue."

The House is not in session to put pressure on the Dems over the shutdown. Johnson is saying she won't be sworn until its back in session.

[bernard11]

But there is no question here about the election, returns, or qualifications, so that's irrelevant.

[ReaderY]

The relevant case is Powell v. McCormack, which covers exactly this point.

[Riva]

If she has a case, let her file something. Weird how the party of lawfare seems so litigation shy.

[not guilty]

Her case is strong as horseradish. But why should the Speaker of the House act so lawlessly as to require he to do that?

[Riva]

If that's really true, then she should have filed something. But the lawfare party does nothing. Like I noted, weird huh? Almost like they're not as confident as you.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You know full well that Johnson is not denying the results of the election. Why lie about it.
You make a reasonable suggestion that Ms Grijalva go before a magistrate with the appropriate certification papers and asks to be sworn in.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's denying the result of the election the opportunity to take effect, though.

[ReaderY]

Powell v. McCormack would appear directly on point.

I understand Johnson hasn’t done anything explicit like the House’s decision not to seat Powell in the case. He is simply stalling. But I don’t think the courts will let him stall like that.

[John F. Carr]

What is the legal consequence of stalling? The House has no official business for her to participate in. Is it just her paycheck at stake?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watching "No Kings", I can't help but wonder what they could/would do if Trump actually did do something worthy of protest.

They will have "cried 'wolf'" so often that no one would believe them.

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

[Commenter_XY]

It was more like a 'Yes Kooks' rally.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It was more like a 'Yes Kooks' rally."

C'mon man, we don't have a king, its the most successful movement in US history!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My favorite type of thread here. MAGAs urge each other on to greater heights of idiocy.

[Martinned]

You are beyond helping.

[Frank Drackman]

Why? because he's not "Divine" like your Pediofile Kingie-Wingie??

[Krayt]

We were already borrowing at per capita rates similar to 1943, when the US was engaged in a major, two-front war, and churning out a new big ship every week. Yet this was peace time and good times economically.

What if economic times went bad?

What a sad, sad experiment to run on our borrowing incontinence. This is not borrowing for wars and infrastructure, both of which justify indebting future generations.

This is the current generation refusing to pay as you go for its desired goodies.

Immoral. Unethical.

[Bwaaah]

And just plain stupid. People who pretend to be steeped in the rationality of science turn away when challenged with a graph of U.S. debt vs GDP.

"It works like this," they say. "It's working like this. So your doubt is unsupported by the facts."

Their theory that it will continue to work is predicated on an assumption that we will change in a way, correct in a way, that those same people never endorse and never execute.

"We need to cut costs. But not if that hurts people."

It's like giving everybody GOVERNMENT-GUARANTEED mortgages regardless of their ability to pay back because [blah] [blah] [blah] "redlining." Democrats and others still call that a "banking failure." (Banks faced regulatory punishment if they didn't meet government-imposed lending targets in government-preferred high-default populations.)

It's just craven socialistic people doing their shit math. They always blame failure on the people who didn't go along with their spending plans. And all they really believe in is borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. The losers are in charge because they say the nicest things, as if talk wasn't always so cheap.

[Krayt]

Things are better now than ever before. There is less need of government than ever before.

It is a facetious game of fraud. Politicians spend the max they can get away with, to win elections. That is all. The "need" grows with the size of the economy.

This process will go on indefinitely. Imagine the GDP was 3x the size is now (Which it will be someday!) Government will still be borrowing at some fraction of that.

That's because need has nothing to do with it. Spending it around is the motivation.

[Krayt]

It's ironic the same people squeaking about oligarchs, capitalism evolving and condending into the control of a few, proffer the solution of an ever-growing omniprovident emperor.

[Brett Bellmore]

Long term US debt to GDP ratio

Total public debt, TOTAL, mind you, was running about 40% of GDP just prior to WWII. It peaked at 121% of GDP at the worst of WWII.

Previously it had hit about 33% during the Civil war, and about 35% during WWI.

After each war, it dropped again, though never to the low point before the war.

But after we went totally off the gold standard, the debt just... started climbing, WITHOUT a war. Hit 64% of GDP in the 90's.

It's now back where it was at the end of WWII, without a war to account for it. Just day to day spending more than we take in, without any existential emergency to justify it.

Totally unsustainable, but the Sarcastr0s will demand it continue unabated, or even increase.

[loki13]

Sorry, but any honest broker does not trust your crocodile tears on this, Brett.

I went through the history previously, and heard crickets from the usual suspects. The last real attempt we had to bend the curve was when Obama proposed a grand bargain, and the GOP extremists forced Boehner to torpedo it.

It's rinse, repeat. The GOP keeps screaming about the deficit, and then gets power in order to cuts taxes and increase spending. And then, when the Democrats have any power, they do absolutely nothing but blame the Democrats.

The GOP has not been serious about the deficit- ever. You can go and see all the major spikes. The Reagan spike. Then the GWB spike. Then the great recession spike (you will see that it spiked, then the deficit declined over the Obama years). Then the Trump spike which was exacerbated by the pandemic.

We have seen the same problem repeated over time- GOP administrations and two massive events that made those problems so much worse.

By the way, I am certainly not saying that the Democrats are some type of savior. But the difference between the Ds and the Rs are that, generally, the Democrats actually do have some concern about the country's future, and while I don't trust them to focus on the deficit, I do trust them to work to solve the problem as they have tried before - if they ever had any belief that the GOP wouldn't just sweep in and cut taxes and blame the Democrats for everything. It's like Lucy with the football- at a certain point, you have to say, "We keep the Republicans the power to do something, and they keep passing BS like Trump's BS Bill. Who are you gonna believe, Brett or your lying eyes?"

[Brett Bellmore]

" The last real attempt we had to bend the curve was when Obama proposed a grand bargain,"

"Grand bargain"? If there's one thing the last fifty years have taught us, it's that the moment somebody in DC utters the words, "Grand bargain", check to see that you've still got your wallet, then run away as fast as possible.

Obama wanted tax increases. But we didn't NEED tax increases to balance the budget; All we needed was to stop freaking INCREASING SPENDING for a few years, while revenue caught up with spending. Until the deficit really got going in the last decade or so, we had never seen a deficit you couldn't have erased in a few years by just Not Spending More.

We don't run deficits in this country because our taxes are too low. We run deficits because Congress has no spending discipline at all, and they will spend every cent of revenue they get, without fail, and then borrow as much as they can on top of it.

If tax increases could balance the budget, Obama wouldn't have had to do anything, because the tax increases in an earlier Grand Bargain would have already brought the budget into balance and paid down the debt!

[Sarcastr0]

we didn't NEED tax increases to balance the budget; All we needed was to stop freaking INCREASING SPENDING for a few years

Giving the game away right here.

You don't care about the debt. Just your preferred governmental policies. For a very shallow definition of preferred, since you don't bother to learn the details.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're giving away the game right here: You don't actually want taxes for a balanced budget, you want ever increasing spending at any cost.

[Sarcastr0]

I've said nothing like that. Find where I've said I think that government spending should be unlimited.

On the other hand, it's not a strawman that you've said multiple times that the deficit is a crisis but one you only want solved your way.

Which makes it not a crisis, but rather a talking point.

[David Nieporent]

"Grand bargain"? If there's one thing the last fifty years have taught us, it's that the moment somebody in DC utters the words, "Grand bargain", check to see that you've still got your wallet, then run away as fast as possible.

Obama wanted tax increases. But we didn't NEED tax increases to balance the budget; All we needed was to stop freaking INCREASING SPENDING for a few years,

Brett once again demonstrating that he doesn't understand the very concept of compromise.

[bernard11]

we didn't NEED tax increases to balance the budget; All we needed was to stop freaking INCREASING SPENDING for a few years, while revenue caught up with spending.

We don't NEED to stop spending. All we NEED is some TAX INCREASES, so revenues catch up with spending.

You are confusing your personal preferences with objectively good policy.

[Life of Brian]

All we NEED is some TAX INCREASES, so revenues catch up with spending.

Haven't we tried to kick that football enough at this point? Congress needs to spend based on actual current revenues, not theoretical future ones. You know, just like we all do.

[Magister]

In typical manner, Life of Brian has to sneak in the distinction of "theoretical future", which is not present in the comment replied to. Spending by individuals based on future earnings is what makes entire industries possible, from more respectable mortgage lending to credit cards to shady payroll advance loans, so "just like we all do" is really dumb.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, Virginia, the graph I linked shows that actual increased revenue from a marginal tax hike is highly theoretical. This has been known for many moons.

Spending by individuals based on future earnings is what makes entire industries possible, from more respectable mortgage lending to credit cards to shady payroll advance loans, so "just like we all do" is really dumb.

Try going to a single one of those industries and asking them for a loan not based on your current documented income but some greater income you can't document but are gee-golly-sure you'll have rolling in Real Soon Now, and let us know how that works out for you.

[Magister]

Tax increases increase tax revenue; otherwise they wouldn't generate so much complaint, notwithstanding dishonest graphs from the Heritage Foundation (ignoring other changes to the tax code among other flaws).

I could get an unsecured loan from several local lenders; granted, not a very large one, given my age if nothing else. The US still has a significant revenue history and a decent credit rating, despite Republicans, and has people quite willing to loan it money that it will repay in its own currency; that's a deal I can't get.

[Life of Brian]

Tax increases increase tax revenue; otherwise they wouldn't generate so much complaint

Tax increases increase tax avoidance strategies; this ultimately results in those of us not in a position to employ those strategies shouldering a proportionately higher share of the tax burden. Again, not even vaguely novel or controversial.

The US still has a significant revenue history and a decent credit rating

This "decent" credit rating is based on historical performance that doesn't match the current trajectory. Our debt as percentage of GDP is now greater than it was in WW2 -- and back then we paid most of it off very quickly, whereas today there's no plan to do anything but keep borrowing hand over fist.

Tax revenues would have to increase about 60% just to match our current spending levels, and that doesn't touch the already unsustainable level of debt. The only way out of this death spiral is to spend less.

[Magister]

Life of Brian, lackey of the rich, has no real concern for those with less wealth and income. A very simple approach to increase tax revenue would be to restore taxation that only affects the very wealthy; e.g., inheritance tax on billion dollar estates.

[Life of Brian]

A very simple approach to increase tax revenue would be to restore taxation that only affects the very wealthy; e.g., inheritance tax on billion dollar estates.

I'm not sure why I'm still engaging when you didn't address a single one of the structurally inconvenient facts in my last post, but you're not even trying to estimate how much of an increase you might see from your proposals and how much of a drop in the bucket that is for the amount you need to make up just to break even with current spending levels. The deficit is running just under $2 trillion a year these days, for reference.

What taxes go up, by how much, what's the taxable base, and how much revenue would it bring in? Show your work.

And even then, that's just a static analysis. How does your grand plan not just give rise to the next wave of evasion strategies, as when the top marginal rate was in the high 80/low 90% range?

[Bwaaah]

LoB asked Magister: "What taxes go up, by how much, what's the taxable base, and how much revenue would it bring in? Show your work."

Magister can't play the game if it's not name-calling.

This isn't about economics for him. It's about who's got the money and who deserves to get it. (He likes greater wealth equality.) Set aside the drag that taxation places on economic output. This is about the pie, the Greedy People who are holding onto too much of it, and a little bit of well-deserved equalization.

As LoB said, "Tax increases increase tax avoidance strategies." There's a crossover point where increased taxation results in less revenue due to a combination of increased tax avoidance and decreased taxable economic activity. We've tested that crossover point and we're already at it (give or take a couple percent imprecision).

Magister's prescription: more for those with less, now, by tax writ. And it would all be made possible by magical credit that dependably expands faster than our ability to pay back. Imagine that.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

[Magister]

I am pleased to observe that I still have a fan club! Only regret, that the membership appears to be Life of Brian and Bwaah.

Life of Brian was lying when he wrote

I'm not sure why I'm still engaging when you didn't address a single one of the structurally inconvenient facts in my last post.

He earlier wrote

Tax increases increase tax avoidance strategies; this ultimately results in those of us not in a position to employ those strategies shouldering a proportionately higher share of the tax burden.

And I engaged directly with that in my reply.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Number went up isn't an argument. It's a vibe. Because you're not serious.

2. You invoke your crisis excuse-making for discretionary spending you don't like, or which Trump is targeting. But that's not where our budget has issues. Not that anyone would tell from reading your unserious yelling.

3. You never ever talk about raising taxes. Because you're not serious about the problem; it's an excuse to insist we gotta do what you want.

4. I've talked plenty about reindexing social security and Medicare, and about raising taxes. Like someone serious about the debt should.
You pretend I don't because, again, you're not serious; this is a weapon to insist your way is the only way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I never talk about raising taxes, because half a century has proven that every time revenue goes up, Congress spends the extra revenue and then borrows anyway.

And you're not asking for more taxes because you want the budget balanced, you're asking for them so that there can be MORE spending while still running a deficit. Because you've already categorically rejected the idea of ever not spending money on anything you think is worthwhile, and you find enough crap worthwhile to bankrupt the planet.

No. Grand. Bargains. Tax increases are just off the table until Congress has demonstrated that it is capable of spending less than it has available to spend.

[Sarcastr0]

I'ma save this the next time you try and bring up the debt., Because nothing shows how little you actually care.

Paragraph one is you saying you don't care about the debt, only that you win.
Paragraph 2 is the same thing.
Paragraph 3 is you saying again, you want only maximalist victory for your beliefs, the deficit doesn't factor.

You're not a serious person, and you're bad at living in any society that isn't endless clones of Brett.

[bernard11]

every time revenue goes up, Congress spends the extra revenue and then borrows anyway.

I'd say every time revenue goes up the Republicans cut taxes and borrow more. Reagan did it, Bush II did it, Trump did it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It's now back where it was at the end of WWII, without a war to account for it. Just day to day spending more than we take in, without any existential emergency to justify it.

That mistakes both the facts and the perceptions of that era. The early years of the Cold War, when the US and the Soviet Union engaged in all-out efforts to stockpile nuclear weapons, created terror among the populace greater than at any time previously. You did not experience it, but it affected every aspect of life, and distorted the nation's politics in ways comparable to the effects of a major war.

The costs to build those weapons and their delivery systems during that era were fully comparable to the costs a major war—amounting to almost the entire national debt by the early 1960s. Which is to say that had there not been a bomb building effort, there would have been no increase in the debt at all. At the peak of that effort, almost 10% of national electrical generation capacity was devoted to bomb building.

(All facts courtesy of Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb.

[David Nieporent]

Watching "No Kings", I can't help but wonder what they could/would do if Trump actually did do something worthy of protest.

Reading Dr. Ed posts, I wonder why nobody ever removed the lead from the paint in his bedroom.

[Commenter_XY]

Can POTUS Trump send troops to gaza to enforce the 'ceasefire' without Congressional authorization? Presumably, it would be to join the international stabilization force of phase 2, if we ever get there.

To no one's surprise, hamas has violated the agreement...again.

[not guilty]

"Can POTUS Trump send troops to gaza to enforce the 'ceasefire' without Congressional authorization? Presumably, it would be to join the international stabilization force of phase 2, if we ever get there."

What provision of the War Powers Act of 193, https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/454 , would authorize that without Congressional authorization?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, the POTUS has 60 days where s/he doesn't have to say diddly squat, under WPA (whose constitutionality has never been litigated). However, if Congress becomes 'incurious' and never asks wtf is going on here, what then?

Personally, I do NOT want US troops in gaza. This is a regional issue, the regional players need to solve that problem. We can facilitate intl stabilization force, but not participate. The palestinians of gaza, who strongly support hamas, are not worth a single American life, not one.

The Cauliflower already demonstrated how stupid the idea of inserting US troops into gaza with the loading dock fiasco of 2024.

[not guilty]

Do you wonder why the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has not been litigated?

Congressional authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is clear and unmistakable under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I think the answer is that neither Congress nor the POTUS want SCOTUS to decide the issue. They are afraid of the consequences if SCOTUS wades into the WPA thicket.

If Congress (or POTUS) thought it was a slam dunk, it would have been litigated long ago.

[Sarcastr0]

You act like Congress as an institution has any ability to defend it's own interests right now.

Slam dunk or no, approval or no, Congress is paralyzed right now, at the choice of the GOP.

The consequences they are afraid of are not policy nor SCOTUS precedent, it's MAGA in the primaries, and MAGA friendly fire within the GOP caucus.

[Commenter_XY]

Team D Congress-critters can absolutely bring suit. Today! They certainly have standing. Nothing stops them. They made the affirmative choice not to do so. Why?

A Team D loon in a blue state doesn't have to worry what anyone else thinks, aside from the constituents who elected them. That argument is just silly, even coming from you = The consequences they are afraid of are not policy nor SCOTUS precedent, it's MAGA in the primaries, and MAGA friendly fire within the GOP caucus.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that Congress would defend its own authority seems novel to you?

As to your attempt to make this Democrats' fault...do you have theory of standing for a minority party?

I'm not seeing an injury-in-fact.

[David Nieporent]

Team D Congress-critters can absolutely bring suit. Today! They certainly have standing.

As always, when you discuss law you are wrong. Individual members of Congress do not have standing to challenge the president for not following the law.

[jay.tee]

Congress is paralyzed right now, at the choice of the GOP

I disagree. Democrats demand an extension of temporary ACA subsidies for high income individuals to mask its true costs. And that’s before we get to all their other, ahem, questionable demands.

No thanks.

[Krayt]

Paralyzed, for what it's worth, is the choice of Congress to do nothing, and hence is not technically paralyzed.

Not doing anything about the president's behavior is tacit approval.

Of course, nobody's ever heard of Congress sitting back, letting the president do whatever. Why risk bringing ire on yourselves if you stop a thing that has a benefit blabberable in front of cameras? All downside and no upside, aside from the rabid 1/3 on either side, and some people who hang out at places like this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it's MAGA in the primaries, and MAGA friendly fire within the GOP caucus."

Oh, they are following the wishes of the GOP national majority.

The bastards!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you're supposed to govern for the whole country, even those that didn't vote for you.

How did you get like this?

[not guilty]

"If Congress (or POTUS) thought it was a slam dunk, it would have been litigated long ago."

Why would Congress sue to establish the validity of its own duly enacted legislation? What word or group of words regarding Congressional authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is in any way ambiguous?

[Bob from Ohio]

"clear"!

That clause deals with organization and military law, not who can order the military.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody said anything about "who can order the military." The issue is what orders the military can be given.

[Bob from Ohio]

Likewise has nothing to do with that clause.

[David Nieporent]

Um, of course it does. If the UCMJ makes it a crime to (e.g.) kill civilians, then the president cannot give an order to kill civilians.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell Truman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The loading dock fiasco probably saved lives -- a "storm" on Gaza Beach is not like a "storm" on even the Great Lakes and one reason why Gaza has such potential as a tourist attraction, you can build right on the beach without everything getting washed away.

If the US Military can't erect a pier on a sand beach, in relatively calm waters (with minor tides), and in relative safety -- what on earth would happen if it needed to do so in less favorable conditions and under hostile fire? Inchon, Korea, with its 30 foot tides, comes to immediate mind.

Now the flag officers know that this won't work and hopefully will think of something else.

[Martinned]

I thought Israel was already enforcing the ceasefire? (By shooting at Palestinians.)

[Frank Drackman]

Ham-Ass is, by shooting and killing Palestinians (I'm not complaining)

[Krayt]

In their role as kleptocrat-dictators, they kill fellow Palestinians.

[Riva]

If Hamas really wants to continue the ceasefire, they should probably cease firing.

[Commenter_XY]

hamas won't change; their covenant to which they swear calls for the destruction of Israel, and the slaughter of all Jews. They promised to return the bodies of dead hostages, and are now reneging. They promised to stop the fighting, and are now reneging. They signed an agreement to disarm, and are now reneging.

The only good hamas animal is a dead one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And yet people complained when my initial response was to "Nuke Gaza."

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think true peace can exist there outside of either (a) a ruthless occupation by an external power with no concern for civil rights, or (b) a genocide.

A civilized people protect their children -- Palestinians fit them for suicide bomber jackets. Peaceful coexistence with a culture of death is not possible.

[David Nieporent]

I like how MAGA like C_XY can't decide whether Trump is the greatest peacemaker ever for getting a deal done to end this war, or whether there's no peace because Hamas doesn't abide by deals.

[Commenter_XY]

This is for Israel to deal with, David. I am the guy who does not want US troops in gaza.

Regardless of what POTUS Trump says....Commenter_XY says that a war is not over until both sides say it is.

Neither Israel nor hamas have said the war is over. I will leave it at that.

[Don Nico]

"Can POTUS Trump send troops to gaza ..." No and he won't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Continuing the conversation.

David Nieporent

"Asking people who aren't just out-and-out racists: what is this obsession with "assimilation"? In concrete terms, what do the people who say that sort of thing even mean by it? Presumably it's not so crude as the notion that, e.g., people should eat hamburgers and hot dogs rather than Indian or Mexican food, but what does it mean? And why is it important?

I can understand the notion that speaking English is important, except that it has been the case throughout American history that non-Anglo immigrants' English is spotty at best but that their kids speak perfect English."

It's actually pretty simple: What it's like to live in a country is a function of the culture of the people living there, as much or more than the climate or geography.

People who grew up in America, and like living in America, want to continue living in America, not a third world hellhole of a country that happens to occupy the same location, with the same geography and weather, but otherwise is Honduras or Venezuela or some place even more failed.

I mean, if we wanted to live in Somalia, we could move to Somalia, we don't need to import everything that makes it Somalia.

"Magic dirt" theorists like Somin think that you can take random people from places that are failed and poor, drop them on America's soil, and suddenly they're fit to be part of a successful society. Because the magic dirt got on them.

Doesn't work that way, and every time we bring somebody here from a failed culture, yeah, our culture becomes more failed.

Now, to some extent, at LOW rates of immigration, we can cope with that, to the extent our culture is self-sustaining. But at high rates of immigration?

You are what you eat.

[not guilty]

"You are what you eat."

Brett, do you eat pussy?

[Mr. Bumble]

You're confusing him with hobie who enjoys BBQ'd pussy along with his Hatian hood rats.

[Malika la Maize]

Oral sex is probably not a topic you want to weigh in on Mr “Clinton got a blow job on his knees” Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

You've been called out on this and yet you continue to lie.
Dr. Goebbels would be so proud his legacy lives on.

[Malika la Maize]

You said he got a blow job on his knees. You might not want to opine on subjects you have no familiarity with.

[hobie]

Women here are way, way too fat for me, Bumble.

[Frank Drackman]

Finally something we can agree on Hobie-Stank (doesn't excuse the Stolen Valor) Of course when you see a skinny Black Woman, it's not from diet and exercise.

[Riva]

Who wrote this yesterday NG? “Invective is no substitute for reasoned argument”? The left certainly have standards, or something.

[Malika la Maize]

Riva 23 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Ask your parents to define “Judeo-Christian” for you. They might be impressed that you’re actually trying to learn something, instead of surfing for porn.

Bot is not self aware.

[Riva]

Well, we could point out that I wasn't the one who wrote "Invective is no substitute for reasoned argument,” so your response makes no sense. We could also note that my comment was funny because it contained some truth. (stop using porn)

Some might also point out your parrot trolling insult above as somewhat suggestive of hypocrisy, and just being a fucking idiot. But I'll leave that to others.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot thinks it was citing the maxim it broke because it didn’t mean it? Well, true bots don’t mean anything, they just follow programming for responses, which they make contradictory, non-sentient ones.

[Commenter_XY]

America is a shared set of ideas, rooted in Judeo-Christian values. Those ideas and values have made us the greatest country on the face of the Earth, in just 250 years. No other country in history has done as much, given as much, sacrificed as much as the USA for the betterment of humanity. It is not even close.

Assimilation is acceptance of those shared ideas and values, not hostility and rejection of them. Foreigners who come here must first understand those shared ideas and values, and accept them. And govern themselves accordingly (meaning, obey our laws, respect our culture).

Otherwise, they can go back to their shithole country they left. No hard feelings. America isn't for everybody.

[Malika la Maize]

The US is far more Christian than Judeo, by your logic should we ask Jews to assimilate to Christianity or dissuade their immigration here?

[Commenter_XY]

Are you deliberately obtuse? Go away.

[Malika la Maize]

No answer?

[hobie]

He certainly didn't answer, didn't he. What to REALLY do about Jews is always a sore subject with Christian Nationalists.

[Malika la Maize]

“Judeo-Christian” is often used to elide the fact that if you’re talking about culture historically and sociologically Jews and Christians in the US had some pretty distinct ones. Christians accept the Old Testament (though often in a different sense than Jews) but the New Testament is kind of important to them, not so much for Jews.

[Riva]

Many Jews have and do, starting with the Apostles. But to accept Christ as the Messiah means one becomes Christian. Many in this world have yet to accept that, just so you know.

You really are badly in need of some basics. At least you’re asking. I doubt you’re sincerely interested in learning but one never knows.

[Malika la Maize]

“Many in this world have yet to accept that, just so you know.”

Riva-bot can’t get the point (which is if you’re going to castigate groups for not sharing American culture then you can easily say non-Christians don’t share American culture) so it just repeats irrelevant programmed response.

[Riva]

No more doubt remains for me on that sincerely wanting to learn thing.

[Malika la Maize]

See? Just repeats.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of "Basics" Google "Messianic Judaism" if you can navigate a Keypad

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

This is as dumb as your deranged limited English, Messianic Jews are a small group and of course quite different than most Jews. You might as well say Christians are very secular, look at the Unitarians!

[Frank Drackman]

I can't keep your Jesus-ists sects straight, "Unitarian"?? isn't that what the Pope is?
OK, for the Un-ed-jew-ma-cated, I'll preemptively explain my Deep-Cut reference,
The Pope's Catholic, "Catholic" is derived from the Greek Work "Katholicos" meaning "Universal"
which is close to "Unitarian".
Still doesn't explain why he's wearing a Yarmulke.

Frank

[bernard11]

I don't know what your point is here, or Riva's, for that matter.

"Messianic Jews" are Christians. Full stop. They can call themselves Jews if they like, even if it's a phony marketing scheme, and I can call myself the King of Bulgaria, but that doesn't make either statement true.

[Riva]

Ask your parents to define “Judeo-Christian” for you. They might be impressed that you’re actually trying to learn something, instead of surfing for porn. Hint: it refers to a shared religious scripture and values derived from a common moral and theological heritage. Here’s another fun fact for you: Jesus was a Jew.

[Malika la Maize]

Riva bot thinks Jews say the Lord’s Prayer! Faulty programming again.

[Riva]

No, Christians do. Because they acknowledge Christ as the Messiah and become Christians. Christ means Messiah.

So much for sincerely wanting to learn something. But why do that when you can make an ass of yourself putting your ignorance on display?

[Malika la Maize]

Because Christian culture is different than Jewish culture? Riva-bot accidentally stumbled on the point, but not self-aware so doesn’t know.

[Riva]

Having shared values and scripture doesn’t mean that Christians and Jews have no differences, just so you understand. Which apparently you don’t. And you don’t actually want to understand. Because you’re just a parrot troll.

So the lesson is over. You can get back to your porn now.

[Malika la Maize]

“doesn’t mean that Christians and Jews have no differences”

Again, bot can say things but not understand them and their relevance to the discussion.

[SRG2]

America is a shared set of ideas, rooted in Judeo-Christian values.

Rooted in the Enlightenment, and tarnished by the use of traditional Christian values to hold it back. Not surprising that the religious fellow-traveller XY doesn't seem aware of this.

Pretty much every beneficial aspect of US progress lies outside traditional values.

[Commenter_XY]

This Pretty much every beneficial aspect of US progress lies outside traditional values is simply not true.

[Martinned]

Give an example to the contrary.

[Commenter_XY]

The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

[SRG2]

Possibly the stupidest reply of the week.

[Commenter_XY]

Give me time... 😛

[SRG2]

Nice one!

[Commenter_XY]

I try....like a blind squirrel, I come up with an acorn now and again.

[Martinned]

It's difficult to conceive of something more firmly rooted in the Enlightenment than the US declaration of independence and constitution.

[Frank Drackman]

Have I told you your Kingie-Wingie is a no-good-peter-puffing-child-buggering-Schmuck????
See, in Amurica we have "No Kings" (except for an NHL team that I didn't even know was still around, I thought they became the "Mighty Ducks"??)

Frank

[not guilty]

Judeo-Christian values? Does that include a hearty embrace of genocide, which the Hebrew Bible is chock full of? All quotations here are from the Revised Standard Version.

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3

"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16

"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34

"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." Deuteronomy 7:1-3.

"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40

In the case of Midian, as described in Numbers 31, the Hebrew army slew all the men and captured the women and children. (vv 7, 9) Moses was angered that they had let the women live. (vv 14-15) Moses ordered that all male children and every woman that had had sex be killed, sparing only the virgin females, whom the soldiers were to keep for themselves. (vv 17-18)

[ReaderY]

Do you really think going on the attack against and really sticking it to this country’s traditional culture will help reassure conservatives that what you stand for isn’t going to destroy them and what they believe is of value in this country? Do you think it might just be possible that your actions will instead induce them to fight all the harder against you? How does that help you?

[Josh R]

Assimilation is acceptance of those shared ideas and values, not hostility and rejection of them.

What are the shared ideas and values wanna-be immigrants must accept?

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R: You might try looking at the citizenship test, for starters.

I used to teach that course to immigrants.

[Josh R]

The test emphasizes the values detailed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution such as equality, liberty, self-governance and the rule of law. Is that what you meant?

[Commenter_XY]

Uh, the citizenship test is quite a bit more than that. Try taking it.

[Josh R]

I have. It's very easy.

What more in there are you referring to?

[David Nieporent]

America is a shared set of ideas, rooted in Judeo-Christian values.

It might be nice if that were true, but it's not. America has 330 million people in it. They do not all share a single culture. I don't share any ideas or values with MAGA. Indeed, MAGA is based on an explicit rejection of what I consider to be American values.

[Commenter_XY]

Did you miss the 'rooted' part? I think you did.

You absolutely share ideas and values with 'MAGA'. Don't be silly.

[not guilty]

XY, how comfortable are you about being aligned with self-styled "Christian Nationalists," who strongly support Israel, not because they care what happens to Jews and Palestinians, but because they interpret the New Testament to mean that war in the Middle East will hasten the end of days -- Jesus’ return to Earth, a bloody final battle at Armageddon, and Jesus ruling the world from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. To this way of thinking:

What happens to the Jews and Palestinians is, to put it very mildly, collateral damage. Christian Zionists are anticipating, and hoping for a war to end all wars, and a resulting Christian world that they claim will vanquish evil and bring peace. Only those who accept Jesus as their savior will benefit from these events that Christian Zionists claim the Bible predicts will happen. Nonbelievers — including Jews and Muslims — will not survive them.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481

As a liberal Christian, this ideology concerns me. If I were Jewish, it would concern me even more.

[Commenter_XY]

Christian nationalists do not concern me. They are a rather small percentage of the overall US population, meaning <5%.

How many Christian nationalists do you think there are as a percentage of US pop?

Show your work.

[David Nieporent]

Far more than there are Muslims.

[Magister]

Polling indicates that almost a quarter of Americans are evangelical Christians, and the majority of those align with Christian Zionism. That's consistent with polling results that 10% of Americans are Christian nationalists, with another 19% being partially supportive.

[not guilty]

"How many Christian nationalists do you think there are as a percentage of US pop?"

What I think of the number hardly matters. Here, however, are some disturbing numbers, XY. Way more than five percent.

https://religionnews.com/2023/02/08/a-third-of-americans-are-christian-nationalists-and-most-are-white-evangelicals/

Here as some additional details of that survey.

https://www.illiberalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Robert-Jones-Reality-Check-on-the-Reach-of-White-Christian-Nationalism-in-Seven-Charts.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

There is nothing in either link telling me the methodology and sampling. It reads like a political screed, not social science.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think Muslims can assimilate into America?

[Commenter_XY]

Sure, why not?

[Brett Bellmore]

In principle, yes. As I said above, assimilation works, at LOW rates of immigration.

At high rates of immigration you get self-reinforcing pockets of immigrants, who consequently retain their original cultures longer.

[Malika la Maize]

Like all those Germantowns and Little Italy’s that ruined our culture?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Generally it worked out, but there was an awkward interval when *some* German and Italian immigrants sympathized with National Socialists and fascists. The existence of hostile foreign powers with ethnic or religious ties to U. S. immigrants can be a real problem.

Fortunately, there were German-Americans and Italian-Americans who rejected the lure of National Socialism and fascism and helped fight these hateful ideologies instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Now do the Japanese.

Switching the nationality doesn't make the charge of dual loyalty any less an exercise in collective guilt

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not charging dual loyalty at all. If you think that's what I'm talking about, you're reading impaired again.

[Malika la Maize]

He was replying to Margrave.

[Malika la Maize]

There were “some” WASPs who did the same (the American First Committee was lead by people with names like Regenery, Wood, and Patterson not Rossi and Bukowski) so this is a pre pointless comment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm suggesting that when hostile foreign powers are making appeals to potential migrants, we might want to select for migrants who aren't subject to (say) jihadist appeals. Either Muslims of the "coexist with infidels" variety, or some peaceable group of non-Muslims.

I said "peaceful," but that's not fully the concept I'm trying to capture. We should be OK with those who are willing to be non-peaceful toward America's enemies.

[Sarcastr0]

Despite some of the libertarians on here, it's a generally accepted to the point of being anodyne statement that there is a rate that's too high for immigration.

But it's a useless exercise to vibe out what groups counts as a 'good' demographic and who counts as a 'bad' one.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's so far from being useless that it's actually essential, if you want to maintain a functioning country while having immigration.

[Sarcastr0]

So much for the liberal innovation of recognizing the individual.

It is an exercise in collective guilt, and ends in bigoted generalizations.

Last week you posited that Mohammed is violent and Jesus wasn’t so Muslims are inherently more violent.
That’s silly in a number of ways but does show the inherent shallowness of the analysis you want.

[hobie]

English invaders never assimilated to teepee living

[Frank Drackman]

Moe-hammad Atta and his 18 Thieves certainly "Assimilated"
into the Troposphere mostly.

Frank

[Riva]

Some do, many don’t.

[Malika la Maize]

Isn’t your wife a Filipino immigrant? Are the Philippines a failed culture?

GDP per capita
Philippines 3,984.83 USD (2024)
Honduras 3,426.43 USD (2024)

[Commenter_XY]

IIRC, the Phillippines were a US protectorate from 1898-1946. They are allies by treaty. There are extensive ties btwn the US and PHI.

[Malika la Maize]

And with all those ties their GDP matches Honduras, a hellhole according to Brett. Yikes!

[Commenter_XY]

Honduras was never a US protectorate.

[Malika la Maize]

Talk about obtuse. My point was even with these ties they still have the same gdp as the hellhole of Honduras. Failed nation?

[Mr. Bumble]

Failed nation or failed culture?
Are they the same?

[Malika la Maize]

How would a successful country be said to have a failed culture?

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika, proud graduate of the Humpty Dumpty School of words and their meanings.

[Malika la Maize]

You not getting my point is par for the course.

[Riva]

Depends on how you define "successful." Nazi Germany rose to ecomomic and miliary prominece. Some might call their society a cultural failure.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a fair question.

Yes, I'd say so. I *like* Filipinos, they're very friendly people, the scenery is nice, the food is good, but their are elements of their culture that feed into that endemic corruption that hurts their country.

My wife, of course, came here legally, and not as a refugee, which means she got thoroughly vetted for a lack of anything like a criminal record. And she was an English literate college graduate elementary school teacher.

Actually vetting immigrants solves a lot of these problems, if it's thorough, and not compromised by a "who are we to judge" approach.

[Malika la Maize]

I absolutely agree immigration should be vetted and controlled, but let’s be careful in judging who comes from a “failed culture” as a determiner of whether they will be a drag on ours

[Malika la Maize]

In that vein I absolutely agree with the administration doing this:

“ The Trump administration is making it harder to pass the oral exam required for immigrants seeking naturalization as U.S. citizens. The new test is also longer.

Green card holders who file for citizenship after Oct. 20 will have to answer twice as many questions correctly during the civics interview that tests their knowledge of U.S. history, politics and government and that is one of the final steps in the naturalization process. The list of possible questions will also get longer and include more difficult questions.”

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/16/nx-s1-5566732/the-trump-administration-is-rolling-out-changes-to-the-u-s-citizenship-test

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What will they be required to say about the cause of the Civil War?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c

[Frank Drackman]

Mine isn't but I wouldn't mind if she was.
Some of the most drop-dead-gorgeous women anywhere (and if you cheat on one, you'll "drop-dead" with your Schlong in your (Redacted)
Always wondered what an Israeli/Filipino Chick would look like....

Frank

[Don Nico]

""Magic dirt" theorists "
A brilliant phrase that fits Somin to a tee

[Brett Bellmore]

The term goes back a long ways.

[bernard11]

So does "self-selection."

And a self-selected sample is not random.

[bernard11]

"Magic dirt" theorists like Somin think that you can take random people from places that are failed

They are not "random" people. They are people who plainly dislike the conditions in their country and are willing to take substantial risks to leave and come here. They are not turning the country into Somalia. That's a ridiculous argument.

And for all your bloviating about culture you still haven't defined what you mean by assimilation. Is someone who likes soccer, but not football, not assimilated? Someone who like Latin music? Do you think they are going to try to overthrow the government and install a caudillo? The GOP is ahead of them there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't defined "And" or "The" either.

I don't care a bit about whether they prefer soccer to football. How important they think following rules is, how much they value academic achievement, things like that matter.

[Krayt]

The immigrants value that. Then their kids grow up as proper, obese, video game-playing phone zombie Americans.

Assimilation! Melting potted right in! At least we get tasty varieties of food.

[David Nieporent]

I don't care a bit about whether they prefer soccer to football. How important they think following rules is, how much they value academic achievement, things like that matter.

See… you agree with me: MAGA are unAmerican. They think that following rules is for suckers, and that academic achievement is worthless.

[bernard11]

Guess what, Brett. Lots of Americans don't particularly value academic achievement. In fact they sneer at it.

Half the commenters here think educated people are fools, and that. they themselves know better about almost anything.

[ReaderY]

The theory that’s heen the historical basis of this coumtry is that people are naturally good and want to do the right thing, but have been prevented from doing so by corrupt scumback dictator types who have forced them to do what they do in order to survive.

It’s very understandable that supporters of scumbag divtatorships are very opposed to this theory. People who are naturally good don’t need a leviathan in order to keep them from destroying each other. And what’s the fun of being a leviathan when people don’t believe they need you?

[David Nieporent]

It's actually pretty simple: What it's like to live in a country is a function of the culture of the people living there, as much or more than the climate or geography.

I asked for something concrete, and got handwaving/vibes.

"Magic dirt" theorists like Somin think that you can take random people from places that are failed and poor, drop them on America's soil, and suddenly they're fit to be part of a successful society. Because the magic dirt got on them.

Again: institutions, not magic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do I look like Hari Seldon to you?

Just because this isn't susceptible to rigorous analysis doesn't mean you throw up your hands and let anybody in. You don't need psychohistory to realize that if a potential immigrant is advocating genocide against an ally of yours, (From the River to the Sea!) you probably don't want them. That if somebody breaks your laws to enter the country, they're probably not model citizen material. That you're better off with people who already speak your language, already well educated and productive isn't exactly a stretch!

[David Nieporent]

Do I look like Hari Seldon to you?

I have no idea what you look like. But I didn't ask you to make predictions about specific people or groups of people. (The first of which psychohistory couldn't do anyway.) I asked you to explain what you meant by assimilation.

I'm not sure that "Don't admit people who hate Israel" is really a useful enough guideline to make the cornerstone of our immigration policy, not to mention that those people would fit right in with millions of Americans across the spectrum anyway, so not clear what that has to do with assimilation. (Were the millions of Irish immigrants we admitted who hated our ally the UK somehow unable to assimilate?)

Even if we try to generalize it to "Don't admit people who disagree with American foreign policy" — which is a challenge since that policy can change drastically when, say, Putin's puppet gets elected — I don't think it really has much to do with the concept of assimilation.

That you're better off with people who already speak your language, already well educated and productive isn't exactly a stretch!

Other than the language-speaking, not sure what that has to do with assimilation, which was the topic. And MAGA hates the well-educated, so that doesn't seem like a very useful suggestion on your part.

[bernard11]

And MAGA hates the well-educated, so that doesn't seem like a very useful suggestion on your part.

And is working hard to try to reduce their numbers.

[Don Nico]

Poor David caught the vibes fro gaslight0. Nest time use protection.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — My maternal grandfather, born in the US, spoke Czech as his first language during his entire life. In old age he spoke with an eastern European accent so pronounced that it required long acquaintance before most Americans could even approach finding him comprehensible. My mother—a second-generation birthright American—born in Minnesota, spoke nothing but Czech in her home, until she was enrolled in a parochial school in New Prague.

My mother's subsequent Minnesota-nice-accented American English was completely without trace of her original heritage. I was startled to learn just before I want to college that she knew no English during her early girlhood years.

My mother was happy with that. She suffered life-long trauma over being shamed as an outsider while she was a girl. She looked upon assimilation as a personal triumph, and had done what she could to forget what she remembered as an unhappy early life.

I heard little indeed about my considerable Czech heritage from my mother. And even less about my vastly more-attenuated Puritan heritage, which some extended family members made a foolish point of pride. My mother hated that too. Nobody was ever more comprehensively anti-heritage than my mother. She hated my dad's heritage, and she hated her own heritage. Which at the time made her a perfectly assimilated American.

Yet, by 1941, before Pearl Harbor, my mother's background, along with other Czech- and Polish-heritage Americans', had drawn the attention of Wild Bill Donovan, who judged immigrant communities might be a fertile source of resentment against Nazi Germany. So at its outset as a government agency, Donovan's OSS made it a point to hire from those communities.

When Pearl Harbor came, my mother was already working at OSS, right outside Donovan's office. She served there until the OSS was disbanded after the war, and went on to exactly the career she wanted, most especially when she was working in media-related staff jobs in DC.

Nobody was ever more completely assimilated into American culture than my mother. But she remained bitter all her life over the anti-Catholic and anti-Czech bigotry her girlhood inflicted. She heard exactly the complaints about failure to assimilate you indulge now, and seem to cherish.

[bernard11]

"Magic dirt" theorists like Somin think that you can take random people from places that are failed and poor, drop them on America's soil, and suddenly they're fit to be part of a successful society. Because the magic dirt got on them.

I suspect you know a lot more about agriculture than I do, but my understanding is that some soils are more fertile than others, and that identical seeds, planted in two different places, will often produce drastically different results. Am I wrong?

You seem to assume that someone who comes here from a poor, highly corrupt country necessarily will seek to impoverish and corrupt the US.

Looks like a terrible assumption to me. Plus, let me remid you, again, that immigrants are not random people.

[Malika la Maize]

These are the skewed incentives that Mr. Trump’s crypto dropbox brings to the political scene. Take a look at two recent multibillion-dollar deals involving Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the most influential figures in the United Arab Emirates, and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy.

In the first deal, the state-backed investment fund that Sheikh Tahnoon heads pledged $2 billion in USD1 tokens, a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial, to complete an investment in Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange. (Stablecoins are supposed to remain at a stable value and operate as a kind of ersatz digital dollar, and thus are widely used in crypto transactions.) A Binance founder, Changpeng Zhao, is seeking a pardon from Mr. Trump after pleading guilty to money laundering.

In the second deal, Mr. Witkoff and David Sacks, a longtime venture capitalist and tech executive who was named Mr. Trump’s A.I. and crypto czar, secured a deal that allows the Emirates to buy hundreds of thousands of high-end chips needed for artificial intelligence data centers. These chips are highly coveted in the larger global A.I. race, and they are subject to stringent export regulations. In this case, experts expressed concern that the U.A.E. might share the chips with Chinese concerns…

Sheikh Tahnoon’s decision to use $2 billion worth of USD1 stablecoins is revealing. If his goal was to merely invest in Binance, he could have wired $2 billion directly to it. By using World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoins as a kind of financial intermediary, Sheikh Tahnoon was also jump-starting a company that has financially benefited Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/17/opinion/world-liberty-financial-crypto-trump.html

[Martinned]

Some ICC news that I hadn't mentioned yet:

- On Friday the Appeals Chamber has refused to quash the arrest warrants issued against the Israeli defendants in the Palestine case. Simply put, the Chamber held that Israel was seeking to re-litigate something that it had already decided. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180ccfb3b.pdf

- On Wednesday the Appeals Chamber disqualified the Prosecutor from participating in the prosecution of former Phillipino president Duterte, on the grounds that he had previously acted as counsel for certain victims in this matter. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180cc2b03.pdf

Of course, the Prosecutor has been on a leave of absence since 16 May while accusations of sexual misconduct against him are being investigated. There was a recent reconstruction in a major Dutch newspaper which suggests that he probably did break the law. Unless that article has serious flaws, he should resign.

[Malika la Maize]

Rubio promised to betray U.S. informants to get Trump’s El Salvador prison deal

The deal between Rubio and Bukele granted the administration access to a sprawling foreign prison dubbed the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, that would be integral to Trump’s ongoing efforts to conduct the “largest deportation in American history.”

The deal would give Bukele possession of individuals who threatened to expose the alleged deals his government made with MS-13 to help achieve El Salvador’s historic drop in violence, officials said. For the Salvadoran president, a return of the informants was viewed as critical to preserving his tough-on-crime reputation. It was also a key step in hindering an ongoing U.S. investigation into his government’s relationship with MS-13, a gang famous for displays of excessive violence in the United States and elsewhere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/19/rubio-el-salvador-prison-bukele-ms13-informants/

[DDHarriman]

Washington Post? lol get real

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, some actual professional, investigative news. You should give it a try!

This story has been reported in by multiple outlets, btw.

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/secret-bukele-trump-deal-grenas

[Don Nico]

WaPo used to be a news paper. it has been a propaganda rag for a dozens years or more.

[Malika la Maize]

Cool story, Don, not a great source like your favorites such as ManinPJs.com!

[bernard11]

Oh come on, Don.

Do you think they made this up? Really?

[DDHarriman]

Yes. They make up shit all the time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think they made this up? "

Paywalled. Any on record sources?

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
I have no idea about the story. My comment is that WaPo ceased to be a "newspaper of record" many years ago as the level of spin within any story increased as as reported merged with opinion piece. And for that reason I finally cancelled my subscription a few years ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

DropSite News! Ryan Grim!

If Sarcasto wasn't a no enemies to the left dude, he'd say your souce is biased and unreliable.

[Martinned]

Hey, how are things going in the country where the President sends the armed forces into opposition-controlled cities, and leans on TV broadcasters to appoint regime-friendly leadership to their news divisions while censoring critics of the Regime entirely? Are you having trouble deciding whether I'm talking about Venezuela or the US? You're not the only one!

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how are things going in a country with 27 political parties and an upcoming "snap" election on 29 Oct.?

[Martinned]

Quite well. One of the great mysteries in life is why people who live in one of the greatest countries on earth complain so much. By most plausible metrics we have it better than we've ever had it before, and better than the inhabitants of almost every other country in the world.

Also, we still have a functioning democracy. So there's that.

[ThePublius]

Tell that to the Dutch farmers.

[Martinned]

The 2nd largest agricultural exporter in the world? They definitely have never had it so good.

[Frank Drackman]

Presided over (and I do mean "over") by a pediofile Kingie-Wingie, does he have a Sceptre? (is that how you say it? "Sceptre"??) like the King in "The Wizard of Id" did?
Or like Bugs Bunny in "Rabbit Hood"??
Lets go to the Video Tape!!!!
Bugs: "In the name of my most Royal Majesty, I knight thee: (strikes Sheriff over the head with his scepter) "Arise! Sir Loin of Beef."
(strike) "Arise! Earl of Cloves."
(strike) "Arise! Duke of Brittingham."
(strike) "Arise! Baron of Munchausen."
(strike) "Arise! Essence of Myrrh,"
(strike) "Milk of Magnesia,"
(strike) "Quarter of Ten...."
Sheriff: (dazed, slurred, but still on his feet) "You are too kind, your majesty."
Bugs: (to audience) "Got lots of stamina!"

Frank

[Martinned]

Speaking of Colombia, it is objectively adorable that the president of Colombia thinks that Trump might read a book.

Petro responded to Trump later Sunday, and while he did not address the financial implications of a freeze of US assistance, he criticized the US president, invoking his country’s heralded Nobel Prize-winning author, Gabriel García Márquez.

“You are rude and ignorant toward Colombia. Read, as your chargé d’affaires in Colombia did, ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude,’ and I assure you, you will learn something about solitude,” Petro said in a post to social media.

[DDHarriman]

That's how you win back those free billions from America's printing press!

All you foreigners can get fucked for all I'm concerned.

[Martinned]

All you foreigners can get fucked for all I'm concerned.

Yes, I had that impression. In fact, as far as I can tell you have the same attitude towards most of your compatriots.

[DDHarriman]

What are you doing to stop your fellow compatriots from being arrested for publicly criticizing government policy?

Anything at all? Or nothing, which is the same as telling them to 'get fucked'.

[Bob from Ohio]

‘One Hundred Years of Solitude,’

Second worse book I ever read.

Petro is a Jew hating marxist former terrorist. He can be next after Maduro goes.

[Commenter_XY]

A question for practicing appellate lawyers: How do you use AI in your daily work, separate from writing briefs?

We have read here at VC about many instances of hallucinated cases in briefs. But what other ways do you use AI in your daily work?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s helpful to write run of the mill emails, but you should of course look over them. They can just be useful for suggesting a turn of phrase you didn’t think of or a tone you want.

[Bored Lawyer]

I only use them for marketing blurbs.

[Commenter_XY]

In what way, BL? Can you give an example?

[Bored Lawyer]

I post updates and newsletters on LinkedIn. It has an AI function that makes suggestions about how to improve the writing. It's helpful about 50% of the time.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, I am familiar with the AI function in LinkedIn. I understand why you say it is 'hit or miss' (50%).

Has anything ever gotten by you, using that functionality? Meaning, you posted something AI generated and it did not go over well.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, because I only use it for how phrase things. The substance I have already written. AI just makes it punchier, sometimes too punchy.

[Bunny495]

ONE MORE TIME (yea, I know it is in CAPS since I am screaming).

As a 79 year old retiree I am still able to remember how Westlaw was a standard research tool. As an avid user of both Gemini and ChatGPT to help in my efforts to create moving pictures I have some experience in using AI. I have asked more times than I can remember are any practicing lawyers using the Westlaw AI and does it hallucinate cases. At $US1,600 a month for a single user subscription it is far from cheap. Are there any Westlaw AI users and if so, how do you rate it.

Asking for a friend.

[Commenter_XY]

I am actually much more interested in what appellate lawyers use AI for aside from writing briefs. VC already has plenty of posts on hallucinations. What else do they use it for?

Examples:
Analyze billing records
Analyze client income
Write emails?
Write marketing copy?
Something else.

[Malika la Maize]

A board of U.S. Air Force Academy graduates that was expected to vote Friday on whether to extend an honorary degree and honorary membership into the academy’s alumni association to slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk withdrew both of the motions.

In a statement late Friday, the Association of Graduates, which serves as the academy’s nonprofit alumni group, said its board of directors dropped the motions after hearing the past two days from “several hundred” Air Force Academy graduates, parents and other family members about the idea to recognize Kirk.

Some academy graduates spoke out publicly against the notion to honor Kirk with a posthumous degree and alumni membership. Retired Brig. Gen. Marty France, a former board member with the alumni group and the former head of the academy’s Department of Astronautics, told Military Times that people previously inducted as honorary members“each served USAFA for decades.”

“Whatever service [Kirk] provided to USAFA does not rise anywhere near what we should require as a minimum before even considering him for such mention,” France added.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/10/17/air-force-academy-alumni-board-withdraws-motions-to-honor-charlie-kirk/

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems reasonable. He just didn't have enough connection to justify it, this was not about whether you approved of him or not.

[SRG2]

He flatly didn't deserve it. If he didn't deserve it in life, he doesn't deserve it in death.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, enough about Floyd George.

[Commenter_XY]

Kirk never attended USAF Academy. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is a kind gesture, but not appropriate.

[ThePublius]

If he had attended the USAF academy, and honorary degree would be pointless, no? Honorary degrees are for those who didn't attend the institution, as an honor.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he had attended, and not graduated, it might have made sense. I think he didn't have enough connection to the USAF academy, period.

But then, I've never been a big fan of honorary degrees to begin with.

[bernard11]

What is this movement to canonize Kirk?

What is it based on? That he helped Trump get elected? WTF is going on with people? The guy was a talk radio blusterer who made more than a few, er, unpleasant remarks about nonwhites and non-Christians.

He was also a Christian Nationalist, a fairly odious movement. This now makes him a MAGA saint.

[Martinned]

It's not based on anything. It's a way to silence opponents of the Regime, and force adherence to buy ever more into the official doctrines of the Regime by saying things that are plainly silly, and pretending that they are true. It's like the pledge of allegiance, except for MAGAs.

[jay.tee]

Ignoring your obvious, er, misstatements, being brutally assassinated on video because you think differently tends to amplify things.

He was also a Christian Nationalist, a fairly odious movement

*eyeroll*

[Frank Drackman]

People said almost the exact same thing when MLK was shot in almost exactly the same spot, with the same exact caliber, also by a loser who skulked away from the murder scene like a coward.

[Swede425]

What a GLORIOUS day!
I woke up, free from kings!
Unlike some people who frequent these threads.
I join President Trump in congratulating those that made this possible. YOU DID IT!!

[Malika la Maize]

“I woke up, free from kings!”

Not for lack of you and your buddies trying!

[hobie]

These rubes seem to think that kings are an imaginary thing here in the US...kind a like ANTIFA.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Is His Majesty in the room with you right now?

[Malika la Maize]

Trump has referred to himself as a king and you guys are trying to make it so. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by a Swedish Meatball like yourself having failed to assimilate to our culture, but not sure what so many others’ excuse is.

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

[Swede425]

Show us on this peasant doll, villein, where Trump touched you with his royal scepter (or sceptre for those stuck in the lands of powerless kings).

[Malika la Maize]

Is Swede trying to deny Trump has referred to himself as a king? Too much time making meatballs to keep up with the news, I guess.

[Swede425]

LOL!
What a great day. Who thought it would be this amusing this early?
The spectacle of it all.
"HE WANTS TO BE A KING! HE SAYS HE'S A KING! YOU WANT HIM TO BE A KING!"
You need to pace yourself. There's no way you can keep this up for the next 3 (at least) years and not expect to have significant health issues added to your already apparent mental health crisis.
If you don't get a hold of yourself now, how in the hell are you going to handle 8 years of President Vance?
If you have friends, hopefully there's an intervention in your near future. Fingers crossed!

[John 4]

Commenters are noting that, despite all that hollering, Swede completely skirted the question.

[Malika la Maize]

So you think you’re going to be unsuccessful in making him a king as he’s referred to himself? I guess you’re used to being unsuccessful and all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is Swede trying to deny Trump has referred to himself as a king?"

Your mom frequently refers to me as a king, it doesn't mean that she supports a monarchy.

[ThePublius]

I guess you don't understand the concept of a joke, and trolling. Get some high school kid to explain it to you.

[hobie]

Noticed that the state of Maine is floating the idea of withholding federal tax payments and urging its citizens to do the same. The rationale being that since the feds are withholding services that Maine residents had paid previous taxes for, why pay for things they won't receive. This sound like a stick-it-to-the-gubmint kinda thing you hayseeds would approve of.

[Frank Drackman]

Another "Hayseed"??
So Hobie, did you know there's no Statue of Limitations for Stolen Valor?
Just saying.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

No one thinks Francis served as a doctor in Iraq. Like his English, it’s a deranged fantasy or pathetically weird act.

[hobie]

Hasn't Frankie been floating the story that he served as a REMF doctor? Which doesn't make sense because he hadn't yet gone to medical school. So is that stolen medical valor or malpractice or what?

[Frank Drackman]

Med Screw-el 83-88 (the 5 year plan, in fact, I invented the term "Gap Year" except in my version you repeat the year you failed)
and since I don't have Sleepy Joe's Disease, I remember Sodom invaded Kuwait August 1990, the week before I reported to Camp Swampy, in fact, I was called off leave to report early, but in the days before Cell Phones, I didn't get the message.
4 months later I'm getting off a 747 in KSA (I'd tell you.....)
and only a Fuck Stick Valor Stealer like you would refer to a Marine Corpse Battalion Surgeon billet (look it up) as a "REMF" position, that would be Danang Dick, claiming he was in Danang when he was in Bridgeport CT.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

It was Saudi Arabia/Kuwait Dec 1990-June 1991, I wish it was a fantasy. Saw some bad shit over there (a beheading for one, and you know, you think it'd be cool, "Hey, a bad guy getting his head chopped off" but like a Horse fucking a Chick, in the end you just feel bad for the Horse.)
Seriously, some of the carnage in Kuwait was pretty bad even for a hard ass like me.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

I think it is a splendid idea, hobie. It is only 7 years in the slammer for the dopes that follow through.

[Bunny495]

Wrong.

Three years, you know how lily livered judges are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMXG2z4o5Jk&t=8s

[Commenter_XY]

I just want hobie to go first. 😉

[Joe_dallas]

How is Maine going to withhold federal tax payments?
What is the mechanism?
What federal tax payments does any possession of other than state employees?

Not remitting the federal tax payments would be exceedingly stupid considering the personal liability of any responsible party which would include state official involved in not making the remittance. Section 6672

[ReaderY]

In the event of restoration of constitutional government, Congress should radically revise the Militia Act, Insurrection Act, and War Powers Act to sharply curtail the President’s discretion and reclaim most of its constitutional power.

1. On domestic matters, the President is permitted to federalize a state militia or call in federal troops to quell rebellion or enforce federal law without a request from the state’s legislature (or if its legislature cannot be convened, its governor) only if a domestic disturbance both overwhelms law enforcement and either (1) causes widespread destruction to persons and property or (2) conducts an organized attack on law enforcement and causes enough casualties to significantly degrade law enforcements capabilities.

2. In foreign matters, the President may only use military force to repel an actual invasion of or predatory incursion into the territory of the United States, or in response to a request for aid from treaty allies under the terms of a duly ratified treaty. Military forces may return fire if actually attacked.

3. In all other cases, Congress reserves to itself the sole right and power to determine if military force should be used, and militias may not be federalized, federal military forces may not be deployed, and combat or a military attack may not be initiated absent a special Act of Congress addressing the situation.

4. The revised law should amend the rules of both Houses to establish an expedited procedure to enable the President to convene Congress if it is not in session, to limit debate, and to provide for a secret session if the President deems it warranted. It should also provide for special judicial rules such as a three-judge District Court and an expedited decision and appeal procedure to address disputes.

[Malika la Maize]

I would think any good libertarian would think that even if current law gives little to no check on the Executive in exercising Militia or Insurrection law powers that future reforms should. Having one person have the power to send troops into cities on any whim is about as un-libertarian as you can get.

[Commenter_XY]

Some of your ideas (not all bad) would require amending the Constitution. That is a high hurdle.

[Brett Bellmore]

I sometimes think the main hurdle to amending the Constitution at this point is that they're doing so much janky constitutional 'interpretation' now that is premised on amendments being impossibly hard. If amendments are admitted to be possible, the excuse for what they're doing without one evaporates.

[not guilty]

"Some of your ideas (not all bad) would require amending the Constitution. That is a high hurdle."

How so? Article I, § 8 authorizes the Congress:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

To 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;

* * *

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. [Emphasis added.]

It is noteworthy that the Necessary and Proper clause applies not only to Congressional authority, but to the Article II powers of the executive as well, including the Commander-in-chief provision.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I don't think ReaderY's #2 or #3 gets by w/o a constitutional amendment. That is where I believe this SCOTUS would net out.

[ReaderY]

Not at all. The Constitution not only gives Congress the sole power to declare war, it gives Congress (and not the President) the sole power to repel invasions. It also gives it the sole power to conduct covert actions (letters of Marque and Reprisal). And the sole power to call out the militia to execute the laws of the United States.

It’s true the President gets to command the armed forces once Congress determines whether military action should be initiated. But the Constitution gives President no power whatsoever to initiate any military action at all on his own, or even to have any say at all in the decision whether to do so. Not even to repel an invasion.

The Constitution’s text is extremely clear on this point. The Framers did not want to give the President this power.

The fact that Congress has chosen to delegate a whole bunch of its constitutional power to the President doesn’t mean the President has somehow acquired it by adverse possession. Congress can take it back.

[Commenter_XY]

RederY, I never knew that you were such an Originalist. Recent convert? I do not disagree with your point But the Constitution gives President no power whatsoever to initiate any military action at all on his own... in the abstract. The text is the text. I can already envision Justice Barrett writing that line in the decision (just kidding).

However, we literally have centuries of POTUS' doing the exact opposite, with Congressional assent. That counts for something, I don't think that can be undone with a simple passage of a law and it is one and done.

I think we are in the 'flexibility within the joints' zone.

[ReaderY]

Congress is obligated to keep its old laws in place forever because so it was done in the time of Henry II?

The whole purpose of a legislature is to provide a legitimate, accountable body empowered to change policy in response to new circumstances.

Previously, it seemed appropriate to cut the president a lot of slack. Now, if seems appropriate to cut less slack. No different from any other situation where Congress decides fo revise a law that’s been in place for centuries.

[Keldonric]

I agree in principle — and the scope should go well beyond this particular sphere. Some real tightening on delegation would be welcome, but it’s hard to see how factions that control both sides of the delegation would ever agree to limit themselves. Madison’s hope that Congress would jealously guard its powers hasn’t held up — party loyalty keeps winning out over institutional loyalty.

This isn’t even about the current moment. Policymaking should come from debate and consensus, not from a single mind. When major decisions hinge on one person’s judgment — and that person changes every few years — the system starts to swing with personality rather than principle. That’s exactly what the separation of powers was meant to prevent.

[David Nieporent]

This isn’t even about the current moment. Policymaking should come from debate and consensus, not from a single mind. When major decisions hinge on one person’s judgment — and that person changes every few years — the system starts to swing with personality rather than principle.

I think it is about the current moment. Pre-Trump, there was widespread agreement about guardrails and the legitimate scope of action. Of course different presidents had different ideas and approaches, but they stayed within — to quote the late great P.J. O'Rourke — normal parameters.

Trump is the first president in history who actively hates the United States and what it stands for, and is happy to burn everything down for his own self-aggrandizement.

[jay.tee]

I realize your post is literally nothing but feelz, but it still exposes your blinders.

Not sure if it’s feigned or legitimate ignorance. Either way, partisan-driven standards are just slavish bootlicking.

[ducksalad]

Your revisions also need to make clear that "actual invasion", "predatory incursion", "request for aid", "overwhelm law enforcement" are factual conditions, and that the requirement for action is the fact itself. Not an arbitrary declaration that doesn't need to be tied to any reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the event of a restoration of constitutional government...

I don't necessarily disagree, but we are about 88 years into unconstitutional government at this point, so I don't think the existing constitution is EVER going to be put back into effect.

Maybe a new one will succeed it, but who knows how radically different it would be?

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone going to law school.

https://www.lsac.org/data-research/data/current-volume-summaries-region-raceethnicity-gender-identity-lsat-score

Kind of a bank shot, but as an economic indicator it’s not a great sign.

[ThePublius]

Britain is in the shitter

Two of the latest examples:

1. Jewish Man Arrested for ‘Antagonising’ Pro-Palestine Protesters by Wearing Star of David

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/10/19/jewish-man-arrested-accused-of-antagonising-pro-palestine-protesters-by-wearing-star-of-david-report/

No freedom of expression.

2. BREAKING: UK police stopped a woman from walking her dog, saying it could offend the local Muslim population — and ordered her off her own street.

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1979726411071094953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1979726411071094953%7Ctwgr%5E8e510677e843d41455849614ffed66db0ec8db1b%7Ctwcon%5Es1

No freedom of movement.

Note both of these incidents are police enforcing against U.K. citizens unwritten laws to defer to Muslim immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk, Breitbart, This new right wing twitter feed guy. Some notable commenters here.

What is with people being super into elevating one sided anecdotal complaints from British anti Muslim white nationalists these days?

[ThePublius]

You're such a liar. Are you saying these incidents didn't happen? Because they did. There's video in the link for the second case I cited.

I'm not anti Muslim, I'm anti police state protecting one class of citizen.

[Sarcastr0]

You're such a bad reader.

Though I would check on the context of a video shared by some random twitter account.

You may not be anti-Muslim (though how you probably also don't think you're anti-black, I wonder...), you're just uncritically buying the narrative of British anti-Muslim white nationalists.

[ThePublius]

Watch the friggin' video!

[ThePublius]

You know, this is typical of you and your cohort here, to just deny the existence of people or events or organizations that go counter to your preferred narrative or political views.

Why don't you, instead, look into it, evaluate it as objectively as you can, and then respond? Or not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The Breitbart article has a link to the Telegraph, which has video of the police interrogating the man about his Star of David necklace.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once again, we see the gullibility of MAGA. There's video of police telling the woman not to walk down a particular street. It's a 2½ minute video, not showing what had happened, what was happening or why she was told that. It does not say anything at all about dogs offending Muslims. While it is very hard to understand those people (and by that I mean the woman and the cops) because they barely speak English, it appears that there was some sort of dispute between her and some other people and the police were trying to keep them separate.

[Commenter_XY]

Remember that movie 'London has fallen'? 🙂

When a guy like Farage comes out of retirement and forms a party overnight with growing support, it is time to pay attention. He may parley that into becoming the next PM. Leftist a-holes hate him because he successfully pulled off Brexit.

Is Tommy Robinson totally wrong? I don't think so.

[Sarcastr0]

You do know who white nationalists come after when they're done with whatever their first target is, yes?

It's a pretty common tale.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that, of all the nationalists in history, only one of them was Hitler, right?

[Swede425]

Not anymore!
Hitler managed to pull off what nobody could do before: perpetuate himself forever and ever and ever.
In the fertile imaginations of the perpetually oppressed.

[bernard11]

Yes, Brett, we know that.

And you do know that there is plenty of room to be antisemitic before you get to extermination levels.

Your comment basically exonerates all non-Hitler antisemites.

[David Nieporent]

You know that nationalists have always hated Jews, from long before Hitler was born up until in the present, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't know that. Are there no Israeli nationalists? I think they call them "Zionists"?

You do know that hatred of Jews is pretty widely distributed across the political spectrum, rather than being peculiar to "nationalists", I hope. So it's no special indictment of "nationalists" to notice that some of them hate Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

For centuries, the Jewish diaspora existed as a subgroup within nations with independent rules, norms and solidarity.

Nationalist authority invariably found this threatening, and sought to marginalize this internal group that recognized authority independent from that of the nation, or indeed any nation.
They did this through restrictions on what jobs they could do, where they could live, how they could worship, etc. When they endured and even prospered, that only increased the perceived threat.

So yes, nationalism and hating Jews have gone hand-in-hand for quite some time.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, again, every movement and hating Jews has gone hand in hand for quite some time.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what you mean 'every movement.'

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean there is literally no corner of the political field where you won't find at least some antisemites, so finding antisemites in a group is not uniquely disqualifying. It says of the group, "They're composed of humans, and aren't really tiny."

It's not like your left-wing allies are free of anti-Semitism, and you know that very well.

[Magister]

There's a big difference between finding at least some antisemites in a large movement which seeks to oppose such an attitude, and movements based on and encouraging blame and hatred of groups of others, which is very often aimed at Jews.

[Commenter_XY]

The early Catholic church was no friend to Jews. The tartars and cossacks were no friends to the Jews. Medieval Europe was no friend to the Jews. The muslims were/are no friends to the Jews. Movements across geography, religion, and time have hated the Jews.

AFAICT, only the capitalists as a movement failed to hate the Jews (even then, some did).

Jews have been hated by somebody for the last 5,785 years. Those haters are all dust and ashes now, we still live.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There's a big difference between finding at least some antisemites in a large movement which seeks to oppose such an attitude, and movements based on and encouraging blame and hatred of groups of others, which is very often aimed at Jews."

Given the Democratic party's relationship with groups like Students for Palestine, I'm not sure that's a stance you want to take.

[Sarcastr0]

You're arguing nationalists don't hate Jews more than any large movement.

You've provided no support. And now you're pivoting to a new argument based on more pure whattaboutism.

Follow the thread up - the original thesis is that Jews making common cause with white nationalists, as they are here in this thread among other places, is a bad idea.

[Magister]

The Students for Justice in Palestine are tiny compared to the Democratic Party, which would fare little worse without them and does not cater to them anyway, and it's not even clear what percentage of their members are actually antisemites. Contrast with the Republican Party and its dependence on white evangelical that make up a sizable and crucial part of their support, to the point of enshrining some of their anti-American attitudes in the Republican platform.

[David Nieporent]

Given the Democratic party's relationship with groups like Students for Palestine, I'm not sure that's a stance you want to take.

The group is called Students for Justice in Palestine, not "Students for Palestine," and the Democratic Party has no "relationship" with it. (Though of course individual Democratic politicians might.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair point on the name, the Democratic party has more association with them than you really want to admit.

"Contrast with the Republican Party and its dependence on white evangelical that make up a sizable and crucial part of their support, to the point of enshrining some of their anti-American attitudes in the Republican platform."

And my point is made: You're asserting an equivalence between a Hamas front group and one of the largest religious groups in the country.

[Magister]

Brett: What about Democrats' relationship with the Students for Justice in Palestine? (per David Nieporent, name corrected. A small group with uncertain relationship to the Democratic Party and an uncertain number of antisemites.)
Me: Insignificant; contrast them with the white nationalists/Christian Zionists among American evangelicals who are a crucial element of Republican support to the point of enshrining their anti-American views in the party platform.

The only equivalence here is that we each suggested the most antisemitic supporters of the political party we oppose; if yours is tiny while mine is one of the largest religious groups in the country, the point is made and your whataboutism failed.

[hobie]

So England targets people who badmouth Muslims and we target people who badmouth Jews. I doesn't seem consistent to be for one and not the other

[ThePublius]

In neither of these cases did anyone badmouth Muslims, you numbskull. One woman was just walking a dog, outside her house. The other guy was just wearing a 2cm star of David on his neck.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, wearing a Star of David or walking one's dog down the street is "bad mouthing Muslims."
Are you stupid or just play a stupid person on the internet?

Cite me a case in the US where someone was arrested for wearing a hijab, and you might have a point.

[hobie]

Let me pull up all the arrests of foreign students that made pro-Palestinian remarks. You got enough time today to read them all?

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism. You're using that to refute what I posted? Really?

Yes and tell ma about all of the foreign students that made pro-Palestinian remarks in the U.K. who were arrested.

[hobie]

Or all the people who got targeted for speaking ill of Charlie Kirk. That kind of speech suppression?

[Commenter_XY]

I believe BL's assertion was... Cite me a case in the US where someone was arrested for wearing a hijab

[Magister]

Metropolitan Police denied the first; the man was arrested for "repeatedly breaching Public Order Act conditions that were in place to keep opposing protest groups apart".

The second appears to be disinformation; no legitimate news source has corroborated it. It is consistent with other misinformation attempts by far-right groups seeking to create discord.

[ThePublius]

"Metropolitan Police denied the first; the man was arrested for "repeatedly breaching Public Order Act conditions that were in place to keep opposing protest groups apart"."

Of course they have denied it.

"The second appears to be disinformation; no legitimate news source has corroborated it. It is consistent with other misinformation attempts by far-right groups seeking to create discord."

Define 'legitimate news source.' Would that be only left leaning mainstream media new sources? How is it misinformation? Did you watch the video? Are you asserting it's faked?

[SRG2]

AFAICT the Regime was so confident that there would be violence at No Kings protests that they neglected to send in agents provocateurs

[ThePublius]

What on earth are you talking about? That appears to be an extremely deranged take on the events of this weekend.

First, you call the administration "the Regime."

Then you seem to be saying that if they thought there wasn't going to be violence they would have sent in agents provocateur?

What is the basis for this? You're just making shit up.

(The only agents provocateur that I am aware of in recent memory were the FBI agents undercover on Jan. 6, 2021. And while Trump was in office at the time, the FBI was acting counter to his administration.)

[hobie]

Wow. That really triggered you, bro.

[SRG2]

First, you call the regime "the Regime."

FTFY.

Then you seem to be saying that if they thought there wasn't going to be violence they would have sent in agents provocateur?

It is an article of faith with the cultists that there were agents provocateurs amongst the J6 rioters, and Dear Leader himself suggested it. So why wouldn't he be prepared to use them himself?

[ThePublius]

"...and Dear Leader himself suggested it. So why wouldn't he be prepared to use them himself?"

Not logical.

Oh, and Jan. 6th - explain why there were almost 300 FBI agents in plain clothes there.

[SRG2]

Not logical.

It's enough to make ti plausible

explain why there were almost 300 FBI agents in plain clothes there.

Even Kash Patel thinks you're a fuckwit.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/29/politics/kash-patel-fbi-january-6-analysis

[John 4]

This is probably the sixth or seventh time ThePublius has made verifiably false claims. I assume he won’t own up this time either.

At least he’s not defaming anyone this go around, I guess.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, and Jan. 6th - explain why there were almost 300 FBI agents in plain clothes there.

There weren't, you utter moron. There weren't any. John Solomon lied to you, and you believed him. FBI agents were ordered there after the attack to help with crowd control.

[Armchair]

"FBI agents were ordered there after the attack to help with crowd control"

Evidence required to indicate this is accurate. Please provide links that demonstrate that "almost" 300 FBI agents were ordered to the Capitol after the initial breach. Also provide evidence for how they were attired (ie, plainclothes or with clear FBI markings)

[Swede425]

LOL!
For those of us who are parents, we understand that sometimes you just have to let the children act out their tantrums.
You sound disappointed that His Majesty didn't send out the Horse Guards to trample the peasants.
Oh, well.

[SRG2]

I recently came across this excellent quote from Karl Popper:

“If I were to give a simple formula or recipe for distinguishing between what I consider to be admissible plans for social reform and inadmissible Utopian blueprints, I might say: Work for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries.”

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

[Commenter_XY]

Define 'concrete misery'.

[hobie]

White Christian Nationalism?

[SRG2]

A fuckwit writes: "because I disagree with SRG2 on everything, when he posts something that superficially I cannot help but agree with because it makes sense even to me, I have to find something, anything, as a point of disagreement."

[hobie]

Any American Jew such as XY should have all their alarm bells going off at the antisemitism and, frankly, the pro-Naziism endemic in the MAGA movement. But owning the libs is a powerful drug. So I'm not surprised that XY has trouble recognizing 'concrete miseries'.

[ThePublius]

This is projection at its extreme. There is nothing antisemitic about the MAGA movement. ALL of the antisemitism is coming from the left, from the pro-Palestinian folks, pro-Hamas folks; university professors, teachers, leftist politicians (led by "the Squad"), and so forth.

Likewise, there is nothing Nazi-like about the MAGA movement. All of the behaviors associated with Nazis is coming from the left.

You realize, of course, that Trump's daughter converted to Judaism?

[hobie]

You have clearly failed to take your Flintstones Chewable Anti-Triggering pills today, Publius

[ThePublius]

I'm not triggered, at all, hobie.

I guess that's becoming your fall-back, like Sarcastr0's "vibes" and SRG2's 'fuckwits.'

[hobie]

You just seem extra hysterical today. We all worry

[SRG2]

BTW what is your opinion of the Popper quote?

[SRG2]

ALL of the antisemitism is coming from the left,
Oh, the Great Replacement conspiracy - "The Jews will not replace us" - is of the left now?

You think that most recently joined member of the Dead Bigots Society, Charlie Kirk, never made anti-Semitic remarks?

And pretty much every mention of Soros is an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

You realize, of course, that Trump's daughter converted to Judaism?

So what? You think that miraculously causes a change in Trump's attitude?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh, the Great Replacement conspiracy - 'The Jews will not replace us' - is of the left now?"

I thought the conspiracy was the opposite.

[SRG2]

Yes, but the quote was what the right-wing marchers in Charlotteville were shouting, so a reminder of that

[apedad]

"There is nothing antisemitic about the MAGA movement."

Ahem....

5 times Charlie Kirk made anti-Semitic remarks

https://www.trtworld.com/article/c915eadce012

[hobie]

Ahem...

Hundreds of times Young Republicans made antisemitic remarks

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146

[hobie]

Also Ahem...

The ADL's dossier on Turning Point showing dozens of confirmed Antisemites and Neo Nazis occupying the highest echelons of the organization

https://web.archive.org/web/20250910213632/https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/turning-point-usa

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me channel Sarcastr0 for a moment.

"Dozens!"

[Bwaaah]

You may be misunderstanding. I think he meant "DOZENS!"

[bernard11]

How big do you think the highest echelons of Turning Point are? Dozens would, I think, be a significant percentage of the group.

[jay.tee]

hobie, since you’ve been pedaling this link for a while, I took one for the team and read it through.

It documents zero confirmed Antisemites and Neo Nazis occupying the highest echelons of the organization.

It throws around plenty of unconfirmed (their words) accusations, inferences, and outrage at the horror of speaking against the likes of DEI.

In the rare instance when someone within TPUSA did utter something that even bordered on racism or sexism, they were quickly removed.

TPUSA also denounced and took steps to prevent right-wing agitators from showing up at events to cause problems.

In other words, it’s laden with social justice and far left-wing vernacular and makes specious allegations without evidence. Many of its “supporting” links redirect to unrelated topics.

TL;DR - you’re full of shit

[Bwaaah]

The ADL's funding comes from donations motivated by fears and threats of antisemitism. The organization has a strong financial incentive, and benefit, from featuring antisemitic anything and everything.

Every year, for as long as I can remember, the ADL reported antisemitism was on the rise. I used to hear those stories on NPR and elsewhere, along with the same kinds of over-motivated material from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

From what I can see from my Jewish eyes, there's substantially less Jew hating now than there was when I was growing up in the 60s/70s. (Set aside the recent keffiyeh progressives; that's a transient idiot style.) But I never heard anything from the ADL about things getting better.

With all due respect to their best intentions, I think the ADL is a bit of a racket. (SPLC is too.) They capitalize theories of hate.

[Commenter_XY]

hobie: My alarm bells about antisemitism have been going off for years; I don't care where antisemitism comes from (Left or Right, Team R or Team D), it is wrong. And deadly.

It never stops with just the Jews. The evil that creates antisemitism will go on to others. We're just the first in line, hobie.

[loki13]

I believe you are sincere in this, Commenter_XY. As am I. I keep reiterating that anti-Semitism is an evil that must be removed, root & branch, from society- although given (looks around at history) I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just going to point this ... small thing out. I wouldn't say that ... as a general proposition, nativist, populist, authoritarian, and nationalist-Christian movements have been a ... great thing for the Chosen people. Feel me?

[Commenter_XY]

I am not holding my breath either. Loki13. Human beings have not changed much in 2MM years.

[Brett Bellmore]

And those socialist regimes have really worked out well, too, haven't they? I'm sure Jews in NYC are really looking forward to Mayor Globalize the Intifada.

I will say this again: No corner of the political field is free of antisemites, and that's a horrible truth. So if you think you can discredit a whole movement by pointing out a few antisemites, congrats: You've discredited everybody.

Universal love would be nice, but agreeing on equal rights and equal protection of the law regardless of whether you like people is really where it's got to be for government.

[David Nieporent]

Remember, even though the words "very fine people" actually came out of Trump's mouth, Brett pretends he didn't say them. But Mamdani never said "globalize the intifada," and Brett has no qualms about pretending he did.

[jay.tee]

Virtually all intelligent, rational, and honest people understand Trump’s statement for what it was (hint: it wasn’t to laud the white nationalists or neo-Nazis in the crowd).

Yet, like with so many other proven hoaxes and lies, you persist with the lies and mischaracterizations.

[David Nieporent]

(hint: it wasn’t to laud the white nationalists or neo-Nazis in the crowd).

It absolutely was, because there wasn't anybody else there. It would be like describing a meeting of Hamas by saying that there are very fine people in the meeting, and then saying, "I'm not talking about the ones who support terrorism."

He praised them, then realized he had gone too far and pretended to walk it back to give dishonest people an excuse to deny what he had said.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no qualms about noting that those words had a context, and you have no qualms about lying about what he meant by him.

Snopes: No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

It was clear cut enough that they didn't even waffle about it, but instead gave it a clear "False".

[John F. Carr]

YouTube's ad generator has decided I care about the upcoming election in New York City, a place I have a longstanding policy of avoiding. (I did see Cats back in the 1990s.) Somebody wants me to vote for Cuomo because "he gets things done." And there is a vague ad about housing-related ballot questions. The questions would remove the Mayor and City Council from most small scale land development decisionmaking. If you want to build affordable housing you would have an expedited review process and would not need to pay off or otherwise buy support from your local city councillor.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/10/06/ballot-questions-proposals-november-guide/

[David Nieporent]

(I did see Cats back in the 1990s.)

I can see why that traumatic experience would cause you to avoid NYC thereafter.

[John F. Carr]

Once upon a time 2010 was the deadline for humanity to beat global warming before it was too late. The past decades have been like the cartoon with Bugs Bunny drawing a series of lines in the sand. Never admit defeat. Reset the deadline instead. Now I hear we've passed a climate tipping point. It's still not over. More tipping points will be offered to keep us alarmed. When we pass them all humanity will spend a few trillion on geoengineering.

This month the United States blocked a convention meant to make international shipping carbon neutral. I don't know if this matters on the large scale. If we collectively care, an extraction tax on fossil fuels will do a lot more good. But then the wrong people will have to pay the tax. If gas goes up from $4 to $6 and the carbon treaty signed by President Newsom is responsible, he's going to have angry mobs in the streets.

[Don Nico]

There is no firm evidence that there is a tipping point.
Moreover the idea of net zero is rapidly disappearing. It is just not happening. Data centers in industrialized countries and the rapid growth of population in sub-Sharan Africa are making sure of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The idea of a tipping point is a handy excuse for why we absolutely had to act before anything bad could be proven to be happening.

But it does naturally fall out of the way they construct their climate models, which require the climate system to have enormous positive feedbacks that put it on the very edge of thermal runaway, in order to project disastrous heating from modest changes in atmospheric composition.

[Martinned]

You talk as if people aren't already dying from climate change.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02399-7

[Joe_dallas]

That is not even junk science - its just garbage. Agenda driven crap, yet peer reviewed.

[ThePublius]

That's crap. No one can even accurately, honestly measure the effect of human activity on climate, let alone attribute death to it alone.

[Joe_dallas]

Publius - it was "peer Reviewed" therefore it must be solid science. - ie Solid science for those too gullible recognize crap.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
That has zero to do with the existence of a climate tipping point. And people have died because of their local weather since Adam and Eve left the Garden

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed - Tipping points have become a joke. Why didnt prior points in time passing through those "tipping points" cause the earth to spin into the death spiral? ie the roman warm period or the mwp.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed with the realization of Net zero coming to rational sense of reality. Denmark generates approx 70% of electricity from wind and solar. If Denmark doubled their wind and solar capacity (assuming they had sufficient land) then Denmark would generate approx 73% of their electricity from wind and solar. 2x increase in cost and capacity will increase production by maybe 5%.

[Martinned]

Moreover the idea of net zero is rapidly disappearing. It is just not happening.

Not as long as corrupt right-wing populists, like the current US Regime, keeps burying it deeper and deeper. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it in places where democracy still functions.

[ThePublius]

Democracy functions just fine here, Martinned. We voters just don't want the climate fear mongering scam to continue. Just ask your Dutch farmers what they think about net zero.

[Joe_dallas]

Back during the Spain black out , you indicated that you had experience in electric generation or grid management. If so, then you should already understand why Nico's net zero comment is correct.

[Don Nico]

The disappearance of net zero has nothing to do with people of whom you disapprove. It was always an unattainable idea independent of a country's political system

[John F. Carr]

America's problem isn't Trump. Obama didn't get a carbon tax when his party had a majority in Congress. America's problem is the psychology of American voters. They will put up with a lot of abuse, but when a $2 rise in the price of gas can be pinned on the government they start yelling. If the cars for sale are expensive that isn't the government's fault, even if it is the government's fault.

It doesn't help that so many people pushing net zero policies zip around in their SUVs and own big houses in the suburbs instead of taking mass transit between skyscrapers. We used to have a governor who took the subway to work, a liberal who practiced what he preached. Since then we got hypocrites.

If I were king with the powers Trump imagines he has, I would decree a tax and simultaneously overrule all the policies meant to punish CO2 emissions and prohibit anybody from complaining about CO2. The amount of the tax depends on how serious you can convince me carbon emissions are. I have seen estimates of the social cost of carbon from $1 to $1,000 per ton. Or in human units, from "drill, baby, drill" to "even those most envious of European gas prices might think we went too far."

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you are super duper sure.

I'm not so sure. I'm not with the super duper sure we're in an immediate crisis folks either. (Though I would note that we could be past the point of no return and not be seeing impacts yet).

I'd ask you why you're so super duper sure; you point to some estimates being wrong, but that's not really a sign of any fundamental issue.
Your confidence doesn't seem to be based on reason.

[Don Nico]

"we could be past the point of no return"
There is no evidence for that assertion.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
You are wrong again. The disappear has nothing to to with right-wing (or left wing) populists but rather with economic realities and in both the industrialized and developing world.

[John F. Carr]

"There is no firm evidence that there is a tipping point."

I can't speak about the particular tipping points we are supposed to be afraid of. Hysteresis in ecology was observed before the climate panic. In a certain range of temperature and precipitation you get forests. In a driver and warmer range you get grasslands. In between those stable zones forest remains forest and grass remains grass. If you cut down forests in some places the trees won't come back. There is some fear that overfishing may have permanent effects, that the cod will not return to Cape Cod no matter what we do. Other species have taken cod's place.

[Sarcastr0]

Of all the excuses for global warming 'nature will adapt' is one of the worse ones.

First, it's not true since mankind has absolutely managed to fuck up parts of nature beyond repair before. Species, ecosystems, trees in Iceland...

But then also, we are part of nature!! We have no guarantee that adaptation will be kind to us! In fact given how much of our infrastruture is based on assumptions of the status quo, it'd be catastrophic!

I tend towards thinking geoengineering is a possiblity, as you cite above. As is carbon capture tech. But both of those are in tension with this 'nature is as nature does' argument.

It seems like you've just adopted every argument even if they contradict one another. You in the oil business or something?

[Don Nico]

"As is carbon capture tech."
Even a the thermodynamic maximum efficiency, it is still a next energy (and economic value) loser.
Mr. former physicist, read the recent report by the American Physical Society.

[Josh R]

That reminds of what George Carlin said about "saving the planet." The planet will be fine. we are screwed.

[John F. Carr]

My favorite quote on the subject: "I think the problem with the environment is a lot of people remain unconvinced about the long term economic benefits of saving the world." – Andy Zaltzman

[John F. Carr]

California banned sharing of contingent fees with non-lawyers in an attempt to keep private equity out of litigation decisions. Neighboring Arizona allows non-lawyers to own law firms and a litigation financing industry has popped up there. Some California lawyers evaded the state's ban on sharing contingent fees by contracting with out of state law firms not subject to the same ethical rules.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/california-bans-contingent-fee-sharing-with-alternative-firms
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/california-law-sets-up-new-contingency-fee-sharing-roadblock-2025-10-16/

[Bored Lawyer]

"Some California lawyers evaded the state's ban on sharing contingent fees by contracting with out of state law firms not subject to the same ethical rules."

How does that work? If you are a lawyer appearing in case in a California, I would think California rules apply.

BTW, some courts are now requiring disclosure of whether there is litigation funding when a case is filed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"BTW, some courts are now requiring disclosure of whether there is litigation funding when a case is filed."

Why? Do judges rule differently if there is litigation funding?

[not guilty]

I don't know that a court would rule any differently, but applicable rules of professional conduct typically provide that a lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

Courts have an interest in protecting the interest of litigants to ensure that members of the bar comply with ethical rules.

[John F. Carr]

As I understand the process, California lawyer shares contingent fee with Arizona law firm and Arizona law firm pays the investors.

[Brett Bellmore]

"California banned sharing of contingent fees with non-lawyers in an attempt to keep private equity out of litigation decisions."

This would only keep non-lawyer private equity out, in any case.

[hobie]

Pertinent to Trump's inexplicable commutation of George Santos, some eyes are now trained on MTG. She has long championed his release, and she is one of the few MAGA who are voting to release the Epstein files. Will be interesting if she changes her vote.

[Martinned]

What do you mean "inexplicable"? Trump has a natural affinity for other frauds, and they don't come much bigger than Santos. The only question is what took him this long.

[loki13]

I assume that Trump was told that there was someone from the GOP who was locked up for continually lying and took the Christian approach.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I..."

Oh, wait. That would require Trump to have gratitude and empathy. Nevermind.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He should have waited a bit longer.

The original sentence was 87 months.

The news of commutation (which was an immediate commutation of his entire sentence to time served with no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions) was announced on the 84th day. It would be fitting if it was the 87th day.

[ducksalad]

George Santos goes way back with Laura Loomer, who supported him when the story on his crimes first broke.

[M L]

Bill Nye says the “No Kings” message is the same as it was in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party

So the “No Kings” message is about a large, distant, national government that taxes and regulates its people far too much—with no limits on its authority?

https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1979922068356391388

[ThePublius]

Bill Nye is and ass and a fraud. He's not a scientist, regardless of his 'science guy' moniker. He faked a global warming experiment and got caught - remember?

Liawatha is also likening the no kings thing to the tea party.

Jerks.

[Swede425]

He's a (supposedly) science guy, not a history guy.

[Martinned]

So the “No Kings” message is about a large, distant, national government that taxes and regulates its people far too much—with no limits on its authority?

Amongst other things.

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

[ThePublius]

We have representation here, dummy, and accountability at the ballot box, unlike at all the situation in 1773.

[Poxigah146]

SCOTUS has granted cert on a 5th Circuit holding that the "habitual user of controlled substances" prohibition as it relates to guns is unconstitutional.

I suspect they're going to reverse. The case they granted cert on was not a situation with an old lady using weed for glaucoma and who was charged under it. The guy was objectively a bad guy, much like Rahimi.

Looks like they're going to demonstrate again why they don't actually care about the 2nd Amendment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

‪Chris Geidner‬
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

The Supreme Court granted review in three new cases this morning, including a big case over the constitutionality of the federal law barring gun possession by a person who “is
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,”

The other cases address arbitration and bankruptcy law.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102025zor_19m2.pdf

Each grant was a relist.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/controlled-substances-and-courtroom-candor/

[Commenter_XY]

I would like to see the restriction on gun ownership removed for anyone using marijuana. Glad SCOTUS will look at this.

[John F. Carr]

In my opinion, once there is a right to keep and bear arms the restriction is too broad to enforce as written and can not be narrowed in a principled way that gives fair notice.

At the state level we have a law prohibiting carrying a gun while intoxicated. That is clear enough to give fair warning, despite the lack of a bright line between sober and drunk.

[Commenter_XY]

Alcohol was around when the constitution was drafted. There were no laws of which I am aware from that era stating that consumption of alcohol at any point in your life disqualified you from owning a gun (keeping and bearing arms).

Agree re: intoxication. But that is not my point.

[Martinned]

Trump on No Kings: "It's a joke. I looked at the people. They are not representative of this country. And I looked at all the brand new signs I guess paid for by Soros and other radical left lunatics. We're checking it out. The demonstrations were very small. And the people were whacked out."

Woof, Woof, Woof

[Frank Drackman]

Wow Martinned doesn't see the Irony in his being able to insult our own democratically erected "King"', while he can't even admit his own Pediophile-Homosexual King isn't "Divine"
C'mon Martinned, admit it, your King isn't "Divine"
I'd describe him more as "Flaming"

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

You neglected to include the entire quote. You know, the part where POTUS Trump states he is not a king. Here is a video clip of his remarks.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/10/20/watch-trump-dismisses-joke-no-kings-protest-i-work-my-ass-off/

[Magister]

"I work my ass off"

No, it's still there.

[Martinned]

Why would I want to do that? It's not exactly good netiquette to fill up the entire open thread with Trump's rambling quotes. I quoted the bit that interested me, which is the bit where Trump implied that the Jews were behind these un-American attacks on the True Will of the People (as embodied by him, Trump).

[Brett Bellmore]

So... that's your defense for taking things out of context? "Netiquette"? Gotta ration those bits, even if the result is misleading, because it's impolite to put things in context?

[Martinned]

Context my ass. The more you quote Trump, the less sense it makes. He always sounds more coherent if you quote a shorter bit. I don't see why I should have quoted an entirely unrelated thing he also said.

[loki13]

You know, I remember when the (movie) version of Starship Trooper was first released, and there were actually people who ... did not get that it was a satire.

And I also remember watching it again a few years ago with a high-schooler, and after that we were talking about it and I mentioned that there were people at the time that didn't get that it was a satire. And he was like, "Really? They hadn't figured it out when Neil Patrick Harris showed up in an SS Uniform?"

...I didn't know how to answer that.

I was just thinking about it, because ... looking around today, I have to go back to my earlier amazement- how is it that something can be both so blindingly obvious, and also ... just go completely past people?

[Jmaie]

The movie was so god-awful that any ulterior meaning was lost on me. I was unable to finish it, and the time I did spend was mostly spent fuming.

[Estragon]

"Newscum is lying […]He closed the highway — not only did nobody at the White House or the Marines ask him to do so, the Marines repeatedly said there are no public safety concerns with today’s exercises. Newscum lies and tries to make it about himself? Day ending in ‘y.'”

A few days later

“We are aware of the report of a possible airborne detonation of a 155mm artillery round outside the designated impact area during the U.S. Marine Corps Amphibious Capabilities Demonstration,”

Cal Highway patrol unit hit by shrapnel… on I-5. Maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea to close the highway after all?

[Estragon]

“A 155-millimeter shell fired during a live-fire demonstration for the 250th anniversary of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton on Saturday prematurely detonated, dropping fragments of the shell on a California Highway Patrol vehicle and motorcycle that were part of Vice President JD Vance’s protective detail, according to a patrol report.”

JFC. Someone alert the Darwin Awards.

[apedad]

Republican Winsome Earle-Sears and Democrat Abigail Spanberger spar over abortion in Virginia

"(Current Lt. Gov. Winsome) Earle-Sears sidestepped a question about abortion, which she once called 'wicked' in a clip Spanberger has featured in an ad.

'It’s not my view. It’s going to be what the majority of Virginians want,' Earle-Sears said. 'There’s a constitutional amendment, and the voters will make that decision.'”

HA!

Ain't no way Earle-Sears is winning in the Great State of Northern Virginia (and those lesser regions).

Reasons Republicans won't vote for her:

She's black.
She's a woman.
She doesn't have the balls to (again) come out against abortion.
Trump isn't endorsing her.

[Bob from Ohio]

She won an election 4 years ago despite the bigotry you imagine exists.

[apedad]

But she won't have the coattails to ride on this time.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, that has nothing to do with your bigoted views about GOP voters.

[apedad]

Just trying to keep up with you Bobby!

[Commenter_XY]

So much for the 'Trump isn't endorsing her' nonsense.

https://www.progress-index.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/10/20/trump-virginia-earle-sears-spanberger/86801375007/

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Attended the No Kings rally, 125 protestors in tiny Avon, NC. It was a lot of fun. I carried an American flag and a sign which read "Trump - so full of crap toilets are jealous." Then had a nice lunch with friends and fellow protestors.

Dare County will still vote 2-1 for Trump, but that's okay. Any excuse to get out of the house and spend some time around other people is good.

My favorite sign: IKEA has better cabinets

[hobie]

Went to the one in Cleveland. There were about 4,000 there. No sign, but I wore my pink pussy beanie. Was the only one with the beanie. Several young people had no idea what it was about. Trump's sexual predation of women goes so far back that it is generational.

I too took the opportunity of being downtown to hit my favorite Vietnamese spot. Got a nice bahn mi and two fresh rolls

[DDHarriman]

When it's on men, it's a bussy, not a pussy.

Did you get your Soro's/USAID check or debit card, or were you one of the stupid ones who went for free?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a cunt cap. Ask any vet.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Trump - so full of crap toilets are jealous."

It's okay. He dropped it out of his plane.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Any excuse to get out of the house and spend some time around other people is good."

A boomer tailgate.

[DDHarriman]

Grantifa.

[Commenter_XY]

Glad you had a good time exercising your 1A rights. Seriously. Humorous signs.

My small town in the People's Republic of NJ also had a Yes, I am a Kook protest. Nobody dressed up as a furry, though.

[David Nieporent]

I carried an American flag and a sign which read "Trump - so full of crap toilets are jealous."

I assume Soros bought those for you.

[John F. Carr]

The signs I saw pictures of appeared to be relatively tame and on-point. No "queers for Palestine" blending of unrelated left wing causes and no mentions of Hitler.

[David Nieporent]

A bunch of the pro-Palestine extreme left has been whining on social media that they weren't allowed to hijack the rallies for their own agenda.

To me, the lack of message discipline of the left is one of their biggest weaknesses. They simply cannot focus on one issue and tell everyone else it's not their turn. Every group or organization must speak out on every issue, even if it's utterly outside their purview. But they did a good job yesterday of avoiding that trap.

[Sarcastr0]

I lived in a communie in grad school for a bit.

The community meetings were i n t e r m i n a b l e.

[Moderation4ever]

Saw that sign in Madison also and thought it was very clever. Big crowds in Madison, WI no surprise. Favorite lines from the speakers were these:

- A member of the Ho Chuck Tribe said he didn't mind immigrants. Probably because today's immigrants are not trying to steal his tribe lands as the earlier immigrants did do.

Journalist John Nichols told how his French Canadian ancestors came to help the Vermont Green Mountain Boys and then moved to Wisconsin where the government gave them free land. Free land I guess that was the welfare they gave the earlier immigrants. Maybe we can stop giving today's immigrants welfare and just give them some of our land.

[John F. Carr]

Remember the peanut panic?

"Advice to feed babies peanuts early and often helped 60,000 kids avoid allergies, study finds" https://apnews.com/article/peanut-allergy-children-infants-anaphylaxis-9a6df6377a622d05e47c340c5a9cffc8

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's super cool and good news.

Are you trying to draw some larger 'public health is bunk' story out of this?

[loki13]

(posted in wrong thread, reposted here)

So in actual law-related substance, the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in the Alina Habba case (yes, THAT bs is still going on).

If you didn't watch it live, it was ... something. Unfortunately, they don't keep the video up after the live broadcast (why?), but the audio should be posted sometime soon. Definitely worth a listen.

You can't predict the way a case will turn out by oral arguments, but ... that was not a great argument for this administration. When one side spends all their time barely able to get a few sentences together because the bench is scorching hot and pushing you hard, and the other side is basically, "Here's my case. Thanks for your consideration," it doesn't bode well for one side. Usually.

But we will see!

[John F. Carr]

Is this the right audio? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4vcXdI33qA

[Commenter_XY]

So where does one go to watch the argument live?

[David Nieporent]

I listened to the audio. Without getting into the weeds, the strongest point in favor of Habba's case is that disqualifying a presidential appointee is a big deal, and there are a lot of moving statutory moving parts. The strongest point against her is that the administration's argument is that the president can appoint her to be USA indefinitely without ever being confirmed, as long as she doesn't get the formal title. This particular situation came about because the senate wouldn't confirm her, but if the administration is correct, then Trump need not bother to submit nominations at all; this is a constitutional workaround. And the government's answer to why that wouldn't happen was nonsensical.

[loki13]

I think that's a good analysis.

What this goes to, really, is the way that Trump has stretched everything past the breaking point. Hamilton discussed the importance of advice and consent (analogizing it to the state-level similar provisions at the time). And this is really what the problem has become- if you accept the administration's argument, especially the fallback argument (the second argument), then it renders it absolutely meaningless.

That's the real problem. It's like all the other power grabs- it arrogates more power to the Executive at the expense of real constitutional constraints.

Structurally, the Executive isn't supposed to be able to simply put anyone and everyone he wants in! That's not how it works. And yet, that's exactly the argument being made... and I have to say, under the BS strong unitary executive theory being advanced by SCOTUS, it might be accepted regardless of text or intent or originalism or whatever other supposed principle of jurisprudence was formerly claimed.

[SRG2]

Any thoughts on the Trump shit-bombing video?

As Trump had already relegated the idea of the dignity of office to the dustbin of history, there's no reason to be particularly surprised.

[Josh R]

It's both satire intended to troll and Trump's deep-down desire.

[SRG2]

It's quite clearly not satire, Mike Johnson's comment to the contrary notwithstanding

[hobie]

Healing our national wounds and bringing America together

[Moderation4ever]

So, Trump want to shit on America, we all knew that anyway. The fun part is the sycophants trying pass the video off as okay. Mike Johnson should enter a limbo competition because he can go lower than any Speaker before him.

[loki13]

In other news-
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150.61.0.pdf

Headline- the 9th Circuit panel has granted a stay of the lower court's injunction of federalizing (and deploying) the Oregon National Guard in Portland pending appeal in a 2-1 decision.

It's basically what I assumed from watching the oral argument and the three judges. My initial takeaway on the lawyers was that the lawyer arguing for Oregon/Portland was ... not good. I don't know that it would have made a difference, but it did not help.

I'm a little surprised that the concurrence was written by Judge Nelson- he seemed more involved, and the concurrence was ... not good. I think it's not just wrong, but goes out of its way to be wrong. I knew he was a vote for the administration, but I didn't think he would be this bad (although, given his bona fides, I should've known).

Based on what I saw from Bade and Graber in oral arguments, I was confident in both their opinions, and it came out as I thought, unfortunately. I think that this is a VERY interesting contrast with the recent 7th Circuit opinion which I think, in contrast, shows how out-of-touch with reality this opinion is in terms of the lower courts.

I'd add that the judges on the 7th Circuit were all former trial court (district court) judges, so that might be a factor as well.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Seventh Circuit is also in downtown Chicago. Rovner and St Eve have their duty station there. Might be harder to buy the government’s bullshit when they work at the Dirksen Courthouse and have eyes.

[Commenter_XY]

How do you watch the argument from FL?

[Bunny495]

It is getting harder and harder to tell what is from the Onion or Babylon Bee and is actually real.

DC woman sued to stop neighbor from smoking weed in his own home after complaining of ‘feces’ odor — and won!

https://nypost.com/2025/10/19/us-news/josefa-ippolito-shepherd-wins-case-against-thomas-cackett-for-smoking-weed/

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, that seems fair enough to me. I don't care if you want to smoke the stuff, but contain it well enough that I don't have to, too.

[John F. Carr]

Apparently affirmed by unpublished opinion not available on the court's web site. The case number is listed, 23-CV-0906.

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice is making noises suggesting that James Comey's lead defense counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, may have a conflict of interest in representing Comey because of Fitzgerald’s alleged involvement in disclosures to the media shortly after President Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26190529/comeyfiltermot101925.pdf

The defense filed a vigorous response. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019a-0240-d83c-a3fa-67770a740000

The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” SCOTUS has held that an element of this right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). An erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’", not subject to harmless error review. Id., at 150.

The Supreme Court has observed "that the Government may seek to 'manufacture' a conflict in order to prevent a defendant from having a particularly able defense counsel at his side; but trial courts are undoubtedly aware of this possibility, and must take it into consideration along with all of the other factors which inform this sort of a decision" where the prosecution seeks disqualification of defense counsel. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 163 (1988). That appears to be what the DOJ is attempting to do here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/20/paul-ingrassia-racist-text-messages-nazi-00613608

Odds this nomination gets pulled? It’d be very easy for the WH to throw this obvious dipshit under the bus and get someone slightly less cartoonishly evil and slightly more competent. But maybe JD will double down on “he’s just a kid! (who we nominated to a senate confirmed position enforcing civil service regulations)”

[Sarcastr0]

“told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday should be ‘tossed into the seventh circle of hell’ and said he has ‘a Nazi streak,’ according to a text chat."

We keep telling you people.

[David Nieporent]

I came across Ingrassia several years ago on social media; he was writing various incoherent screeds purporting to be legal analysis, and I remember thinking, "Who is this moron?" And it turned out that he hadn't even graduated from law school yet. (Or maybe he had graduated but not passed the bar; my memory is a little hazy on the specifics.) But I do specifically recall that he had done his best when describing himself to obscure the fact that he wasn't actually a lawyer yet.

He exhibited generally Trump-attorney level incompetence in terms of legal acumen, but in the things I had seen he hadn't yet gone full Nazi, as this article makes clear he has done. When you're too extreme white nationalist for a group of Trump supporters…

[Michael P]

Fetch my fainting couch! Someone on the Internet dared to argue legal topics without being a member of the right guild!

[Sarcastr0]

You papering over the Nazi bit, Michael?

Get used to it; you're going to be doing a lot more of it.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprisingly, Michael P denigrates the very concept of expertise, but also didn't bother to read. It was because the guy's analysis was so pathetic that I looked up his background. If his reasoning were competent, his background wouldn't have been relevant. And he himself obviously thought his background was relevant because — as I said — he tried to obscure it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Per Libs of Tiktok, OSU is offering a Computer Science class that has "White Rage" and "The Case for Reparations" as reading assignments.

I can't verify the screenshots, but the OSU Bookstore has "White Rage" listed for the class.

[David Nieporent]

The class is entitled Communications Security and Social Movements. Based on the syllabus, it seems to focus heavily on the latter and not so much on the former. I don't know anything about OSU, but it may be a way for non-technical people to take a pseudo-STEM course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds like it might be about how to run a criminal conspiracy without your internal communications being intercepted.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you think discussing Ta Nehisi Coates is a sure sign the next step is planning conspiracy crimes.

Stop making shit up.

[Bwaaah]

Sounds like you'll let universities use computer science courses to contribute to a giant social promotion turd pile like all other would-be technical studies. Eventually, it'll all meet the low standards of "social science."

You know damned well that's not Computer Science.

I trust you to always let the bar be lowered when it advances the interests of one of your favored sub-classes, as with social justice warriors in this case.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, join Brett in his political thriller delusions. I can't stop you.

Go rant about how STEM/technical studies has gone woke and is now doing criminal conspiracies.

I hear street corners are good for that.

advances the interests of one of your favored sub-classes
Just call me a nigger lover; saves typing.

[jay.tee]

You’re a gigantic asshole, Sarcastr0.

You’re digging the hole deeper and deeper just to avoid admitting a course like this has zip to do with Computer Science. Sadly, It’s a familiar pattern.

Throw in some uninspiring strawmen to fill any perceived cracks in the argument and your bad faith argument is complete.

You may be the least civil regular poster here. Ironically, the person you most frequently attack may be the best at ignoring your flagrant outbursts.

[Bwaaah]

As I once wrote, Brett may be destined for sainthood for his patiently respectful treatment of Sarcastr0.

[Bwaaah]

You can't even stand up for rigorous teaching in the scientific fields. Your remark suggests that you consider doing so to be "racist." (And yet, you know that's not true.)

That you would so falsely characterize my position is typical for you.

Get a real point, Sarc.

[Sarcastr0]

You can't even stand up for rigorous teaching in the scientific fields.
That's you insisting I follow your spin. I'm not doing that.

Your remark suggests that you consider doing so to be "racist."
No, I consider being accused of being a race traitor to be racist.

advances the interests of one of your favored sub-classes
I don't have those. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are spinning some white resentment fairy tail.

It's offensive.

[Commenter_XY]

A pity. Be offended. Deeply.

[Bwaaah]

1) I've never insisted you follow anything. I merely try to appeal to your scant consideration.
2) I never accused you of being a race traitor or anything of the sort. (That whole ethos is a *you* thing, not a *me* thing.)
3) You do have favored sub-claIsses. For example, you tend to favor Democrat-sponsored political sub-classes over Republican political sub-class. You might better understand this by considering the types of people you wish there were less of.

I'll pretend you stamped your foot or slammed a door at the end of your last comment.

[Sarcastr0]

OK then, we can try this again.

"You can't even stand up for rigorous teaching in the scientific fields." - strawman.

"Your remark suggests that you consider doing so to be "racist."" - strawman.

"advances the interests of one of your favored sub-classes" a scurrilous accusation, via another strawman.

"you tend to favor Democrat-sponsored political sub-classes over Republican political sub-class"
Democrat-sponsored? That's some odd phrasing. What classes exactly are sponsored thusly?

"the types of people you wish there were less of."
Dude, that's not what you were accusing me of above, and I don't think you're doing a good job retconning it. My post about Ta Nehisi Coates is what set you off!
Everyone thinks Democrats when they think that guy, who lives in France.

[John 4]

You’re truly a ridiculous person.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a way to smuggle non-technical, ideologically loaded content into STEM courses, which is way it's being called out.

[David Nieporent]

I am quite certain that a course with "Social Movements" in the title is not trying to "smuggle" anything in.

[Commenter_XY]

Deportation update....2MM illegal aliens gone and counting.

500K illegal aliens deported
1.5MM illegal aliens left and went home
~2MM illegal aliens no longer here....bye, bye.

Homan is just now starting to back up his big talk. Next year, ~5MM more should be gone, at a minimum.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-on-pace-shatter-deportation-record-end-first-year-just-the-beginning

[Martinned]

Imagine how many more brown people he would have deported if he wasn't busy taking bribes!

[Frank Drackman]

Imagine how many more little boys your Kingie-Wingie would have diddled if he wasn't Divine.
I know,
"It's good to be the King"

Frank

[ThePublius]

Well, this was predictable, unfortunately. But why didn't Israel and the U.S. foresee this and prevent it?

Hamas is re-establishing itself in Gaza.

"Hamas militants are reestablishing bases inside hospitals and schools, using civilian infrastructure to interrogate Gazans the terror group accuses of collaborating with Israel, according to Palestinian media reports.

"Hamas's internal security forces have begun summoning opponents from schools, tents, and hospitals controlled by Hamas members for interrogation," the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official Arabic mouthpiece, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, reported over the weekend."

https://freebeacon.com/israel/hamas-commandeers-schools-and-hospitals-to-interrogate-its-gazan-opponents/

I think that allowing Hamas to continue to exist is the biggest mistake made in a long time. They should all have been routed out and eliminated or 'deported;' i.e., move to some other place. We really needed the de-Hamasification of Gaza, and we stopped short.

[Martinned]

They did a deal to get the hostages out.

This was an equally foreseeable event, equally not (seriously) governed by the "peace" "deal".

https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/UNRWA-Our-Food-Stock-Can-Support-Two-Million-People-in-Gaza-for-Three-Months-45697

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/16/on-world-food-day-israel-continues-to-restrict-aid-into-gaza

[Brett Bellmore]

No sensible person thought Hamas would actually observe the cease fire, or that the 'peace deal' would result in a peace that lasted longer than the traditional "time needed to reload".

It was just to get the few still living hostages out, and now Israel can continue the war to Hamas' end without risking killing the hostages.

[John F. Carr]

In the short term it worked out great for Netanyahu. He got the hostages back and he got to keep his war.

In the long term, Ibn Hamas is going to look at the outcome and think releasing hostages before concrete actions by Israel is a bad move. Next time the negotiating position may be "withdraw your troops first and we stop publishing videos of your hostages being raped second."

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Israel allow for there to be a next time?

[Frank Drackman]

We don't forget.

[John F. Carr]

Continuing the war might work out better for Israel in the long term. If Israel kills enough people there might not be a third intifada.

Continuing the war might work out better for Netanyahu for the rest of his life and worse for Israel in the long term. Ending the first two intifadas did not bring lasting peace.

My view of what is better for Israel may differ from what protesters in the streets say. I think taking 200-ish hostages is about as bad as killing 200 people in the initial attack.

[Commenter_XY]

To my amazement, the Arab guarantors who are supposed to be in the stabilization force are too chickenshit to fight hamas. They are afraid to fight them. These clowns are going to protect Israel?

If the terms of the ceasefire are not being met, then there is no ceasefire.

[David Nieporent]

Well, this was predictable, unfortunately. But why didn't Israel and the U.S. foresee this and prevent it?

You may not have noticed, but Trump is deeply stupid and incompetent and lazy. He wanted headlines (and that Nobel). He's not big on follow through.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost David, with your irrational, deranged hatred of Trump. It's tiring.

[David Nieporent]

My hatred of Trump is both rational and ranged. And you're the one who asked why Trump didn't foresee this! So why are you mad at me for answering?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet the 20 remaining living hostages were released.

[David Nieporent]

Trump wasn't tooting his own horn for getting hostages released (for obvious reasons: Biden got out far more). Trump was touting himself for ending the conflict.

[ThePublius]

"Biden got out far more"

There weren't many left for Trump to help release.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...for obvious reasons: Biden got out far more..."

Uh, Trump got out far more. Biden got out something like -116 hostages. Trump got out 20.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what kind of wrong, snarky point you're trying to make, but it's dumb and wrong.

[loki13]

Today in Lindsey Halligan news!

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anna--lindsey-halligan-here

Totally normal stuff, just like you'd see from an experienced federal prosecutor.

[Martinned]

In case I forgot to mention, every single comment I've ever made on this blog was off the record.

[Frank Drackman]

and no comments on the Buggery of your Divine Kingie-Wingie, that's cool, his Buggery was "off the record" also.

[Sarcastr0]

Our country has 12-year-olds in charge.

'I call off the record! I call it for even back in time!'

[Zarniwoop]

Just read that and came here to post the same link.

Truly bat and sheet insane that a completely inexperienced and utterly incompetent hack like Halligan is allowed anywhere near the EDVA US Attorney job.

[not guilty]

As Jed Clampett was fond of saying:

Weee! Doggies!!

[David Nieporent]

I read that yesterday, and it was just the Picard facepalm meme every ten seconds. If it were Jeanine Pirro, I'd have assumed that she had drunk dialed Bower. But as far as I know, Halligan isn't a lush; she's just an unqualified sycophant. (But then again, as far as I knew, Halligan was a competent attorney… in her own lane, anyway. But this story calls her basic fitness as a lawyer into serious question.)

It sure isn't going to get judges to sympathize with her when Comey's motion to disqualify her is heard.

[not guilty]

I wonder. Should Team Comey want her disqualified? Or should they instead follow Napoleon Bonaparte's maxim: Never interfere with your enemy when he is in the process of making a mistake.

[David Nieporent]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5566462-ingrassia-withdraws-trump-counselor-consideration/

You won't have Paul Ingrassia to kick around anymore…

…for at least a few weeks, until the heat dies down, and then they'll find a new job for him in the Trump administration that doesn't require confirmation.