Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[jb]

I didn't realize when Trump wanted to Make America Great Again he meant taking the White House all the way back to 1814.

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t get it, while we think of 1814 as primitive, at the time they felt as “modern” as we do, in 200 years we’ll appear just as primitive to the people of 2225.

Frank “wait until I show the neighbors my new Cotton Gin!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that cotton still has seeds that need to be removed, right?

[Frank Drackman]

My Plantation only grows the Seedless variety

[Martinned]

Back then they had taste

[Mr. Bumble]

...but no running water or indoor plumbing.

[Frank Drackman]

77,302,580 voted for our POTUS (OK, I know only 312 Electors actually voted directly for President, you know what I mean)
How many voted for your Kingie-Wingie???

Frank

[Martinned]

Also, I assume Congress appropriated money for the demolition of part of the White House? Surely Trump isn't paying for this with "donations" from business and/or foreign states?

[Frank Drackman]

Careful there, some of it might be from your Kingie-Wingie(I get that he’s “Divine” but does his Shit stink? Does he put on those Kingie Shoes one at a time?

Frank

[Martinned]

Silly me, of course he's paying for it with bribes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-white-house-ballroom-donor-names/

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5565273-trump-white-house-ballroom-funding-plans/

I wonder if they've decided yet whether the lucky "donors" can have their names carved into the White House.

[Frank Drackman]

Your King's paying for it with Bribes?
Might want to watch out, Jamal Khashoggi said mean things about his King and literally lost his head over it.

Frank

[John F. Carr]

At least the American government gets to retain the benefits of these payments after Trump is gone.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Carr — To me, and a lot of others, there are no benefits, only detriments. I do not want a seat of executive power which bespeaks extravagance. There was a time when Republicans generally would have thought likewise.

If the candidate I want gets elected president, the only impact that, "ballroom," will have on the nation's well-being will be the cost to tear it down, and bury the gilded wreckage. That's if it isn't stopped in its tracks legally. I don't understand how Trump gets congressionally unauthorized access to public land to do what he wants with private money.

More generally, I think legally constraining the executive to avoid use of private money is wiser policy. The private money will always create corruption if it is permitted. Do you think otherwise?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, fuckwit. Will you get your billionaire friends to pony up to tear it down?

[William of Brooklyn]

Seriously?? Do you have any idea of how "extravagant" the White House, as originally completed in 1800, was compared to the ordinary housing of Americans at that time? No matter what you think of the new addition, or of the process surrounding it, the notion of "republican simplicity" is absolute nonsense. A "people's house" would be a log cabin.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The initial construction took place over a period of eight years at a reported cost of $232,371.83."

[loki13]

Uh, assuming you don't actually know much about history, and you didn't bother to learn.

The White House was not extravagant when it was built. Feel free to read what John Adams and his wife said about it.

I could continue, but I would recommend learning a little about how we deliberately charted a different course (with less, um, gold and opulence) than the Europeans we had deliberately broke from.

[Mr. Bumble]

A link might be nice.

[Frank Drackman]

That scene in “John Adams” where Abigail looks at the Slaves working on the grounds almost makes me want to go back and be an Abolitionist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they had sawmills and were using boards for houses in the 1600s. See 1692 Boardman House:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boardman_House_(Saugus%2C_Massachusetts)

Log cabins were only in remote places -- away from rivers as boards were a LOT easier to transport -- even though they used post & beam framing.

The White House, prior to the 1814 fire -- a DC thunderstorm downpour saved it -- it was called "The President's Mansion. While a replica, tho original was torn down because it was in the way of the railroad, Henry Knox's house in Thomaston, Maine is similar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.knoxmuseum.org/

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks Grampa, interesting link.

Also: rare case when Grampa Ed might actually be correct about someone else being historically ignorant. Props.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen -- state dinners are a necessity. We live in a world with bad people who have things like RPGs. (Rocket Propelled Grenade).

If someone shot a RPG at you, would you prefer to be in:
(a) A tent.
(b) A hardened building designed to stop a RPG.

And the thing that I am not asking is how effective circa 1930s construction would be at stopping a RPG -- which neither existed at the time, nor the related threat of terrorism. Lincoln and Garfield were both fatally shot with handguns at essentially point blank range -- that's how different things were back then.

So forget Evil Orange Man and think about protecting a POTUS whom you like. Yes, I can live with spending some money for safety.

[ReaderY]

As I see it, extravagance is in the eye of the beholder. The issue to me is Congressional authorization. Congress has authorized many public buildings I personally think quite ugly. But that is just my opinion. To me, the real problem is not the architecture (which I agree is awful). It’s destroying a public historical monument to build something of Mr. Trump’s own choosing with money “donated” by others, without Congressional authorization or appropriation and with no public input. This is the People’s House, not Mr. Trump’s private one.

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed.

Unfortunately, I'm sort of scratching my head when it comes to who - if anyone! - would have standing to litigate to stop demolition and/or construction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Demolition is ongoing. You want to stop it now and put it back together?

[Martinned]

Demolition is ongoing. You want to stop it now and put it back together?

That seems like an apt motto for the entire second Trump administration

[Mr. Bumble]

"I didn't realize when Trump wanted to Make America Great Again he meant taking the White House all the way back to 1814."
Are you claiming he is planning to burn the whole thing down like the British troops did in 1814?
You do realize that the only part of the original White House that remains are the four exterior walls. The interior was gutted and rebuilt during the second Truman administration.

[Martinned]

It wasn't "gutted". That word only describes what Trump is now doing. It was carefully restored and refurbished.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, it was gutted.
"The most significant modification to the current White House came under President Harry Truman. From 1948 to 1952, the interior was completely gutted, and a new steel frame was constructed to modernize and reinforce the building while preserving its historic exterior. Truman and his family lived at Blair House during the extensive reconstruction, which fortified the White House's safety and functionality for future administrations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction#/media/File:The_Shell_of_the_White_House_during_the_Renovation-05-17-1950.jpg

[Martinned]

Very carefully taking a building apart and putting it back together again isn't "gutted". Please stop defending the vandalism of the Regime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Martinned, "gutted" is a technical term in the building trades. (All my relatives were in the trades when I grew up.) And it does refer to what was done with the White house during the Truman administration.

[Martinned]

I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I have a technical discussion with people who work in the building trades.

[Mr. Bumble]

Look at the linked picture, fuckwit (H/T SRG2) and tell me the building wasn't gutted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction#/media/File:The_Shell_of_the_White_House_during_the_Renovation-05-17-1950.jpg

[Michael P]

Note that it's a technical term, not jargon, so people outside that industry are somewhat likely to understand what it means.

I'll tell you what: we won't insist that you are wrong about what Dutch words mean if you stop trying to tell us what English words mean.

[Martinned]

Why don't we instead stop moving goalposts and agree that the Great Leader is vandalising one of America's most beloved monuments because he wants to build the nearest thing he can get away with to an enormous gold statue of himself?

[DDHarriman]

Why are you telling your country mates to fuck off as they're getting imprisoned for criticizing your government?

Is that why you always shit on ours? Because if you complained about yours you'd be in prison?

[Michael P]

The only one moving goalposts here is the idiot who can't keep a thread of thought for more than two comments. You want to insist that renovations are vandalism when Trump does them but treat them differently when Truman did much more.

[Martinned]

Why are you telling your country mates to fuck off as they're getting imprisoned for criticizing your government?

WTF are you talking about?

Because if you complained about yours you'd be in prison?

WTF are you talking about?

For the record, I mostly talk about the US here because that's the only thing you myopic idiots ever want to talk about. (Well, that and Israel.)

[Martinned]

You want to insist that renovations are vandalism when Trump does them but treat them differently when Truman did much more.

Yes. See? There isn't actually any confusion, just obfuscation. Trump wrecking the White House is bad, Truman restoring the White House is good. What part of that is confusing?

[Michael P]

What part of that is confusing?

None of it. It has always been entirely clear that you are just begging the question.

[David Nieporent]

The only one moving goalposts here is the idiot who can't keep a thread of thought for more than two comments. You want to insist that renovations are vandalism when Trump does them but treat them differently when Truman did much more.

As always, all MAGA has are whatabouts.

1) The extensive renovations in Truman's term were because the building was in desperate need of major repair, not because Truman wanted to build a monument to himself.

2) Truman didn't unilaterally make the decision to proceed; Congress authorized it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The president was both the recent and future resident, and also the current occupant of the West Wing. While the commission was in overall charge of the project, President Truman was a highly influential participant from early design and throughout all stages of construction."

[MoreCurious]

I wish I had your confidence that Trump couldn't get away with erecting an enormous gold statue of himself. Who would stop him? He's desecrating the East Wing, he's shooting fishermen out of the sea, he's ordering the D.O.J. to prosecute his perceived enemies, he's raising the cost of living for the American people by imposing tariffs, and he's accepting bribes from the Qataris in the form of a luxury Boeing 747. And not one Republican representative or senator has the guts to say no.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd also add that the term has been routinely used on widely watched remodeling shows, like This Old House, so it's hardly obscure.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Gut renovation is a term used in the construction industry to describe the complete removal and reconstruction of a building's interior. This type of renovation involves taking a property down to its bare bones and rebuilding from scratch. While it may seem like a daunting task, gut renovations can transform a space and provide a fresh start for homeowners and businesses alike."
https://www.architectureadrenaline.com/gut-renovation-meaning-what-it-entails-and-what-to-expect/

[Martinned]

I'd also add that the term has been routinely used on widely watched remodeling shows, like This Old House, so it's hardly obscure.

Do I sound like someone who watches remodelling shows?

[Bwaaah]

Martinnned: "Do I sound like someone who watches remodelling shows?"

No. You sound like a person with TDS who finds himself stuck trying to redefine construction terminology.

[Brett Bellmore]

Martinned, why don't you just admit that you mistakenly objected to somebody using a perfectly ordinary and appropriate English word? There's nothing shameful about not having a comprehensive grasp of somebody else's language.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do I sound like someone who watches remodelling shows?"

No, you are more a cartoon watcher.

And figure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Martinned, it had termites. The final straw was when the piano went through the floor.

You can carefully RECONSTRUCT woodwork, sometimes even using the original methods, but you can't re-install Swiss Cheese. Termites (and Carpenter Ants) chew tunnels through the interior of the wood pieces to the extent that the paint is the only thing holding the wood together.

[Martinned]

The final straw was when the piano went through the floor.

That's an exciting story. Did you see it in some silent movie from the 1920s?

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned doubles down on stupid.
"In June 1948, a leg of Margaret Truman's piano crashed through the floor in her second floor sitting room and through the ceiling of the Family Dining Room below. Investigators found the floor boards had rotted, the main floor beam was split completely through, and the ceiling below had dropped 18 inches (46 cm). The investigators determined that the west end of the second floor was sinking.[14]"
Take a few minutes and read the wiki entry on the history of thw White House you pompous fuckwit.

[Joe_dallas]

Martineed - doubling down on being repetitively wrong

from AI -
Structural necessity: By 1948, the White House was in danger of collapsing. A key incident was when the leg of a grand piano crashed through the floor during a performance by Truman's daughter, Margaret.

[Martinned]

Yes. How is that remotely the same thing as what Trump is doing?

[Joe_dallas]

Do you realize you changed the subject from your multiples denials of prior gutting of the White House

[ThePublius]

You're an idiot, it's true, but there's no need to prove it in every open thread.

[Sarcastr0]

Smell that civility!

[ThePublius]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. As if you are the model of civility yourself.

[NvEric]

> Did you see it in some silent movie from the 1920s?
That's funny + 1

[ThePublius]

You're a petulant jerk, Martinned. "Gut" was exactly what was done during the 2nd Truman administration. It's a term of art in the construction industry, and in the vernacular of the U.S., at least, perhaps all English speaking countries.

You just hate Trump so much, so irrationally, that you're reaching for things to criticize him for.

The White House needs a ballroom! They have previously had to have some guests in spillover rooms, unable to attend the primary event. It was embarrassing.

Many presidents have modified the White House. Do some research before you shoot your mouth off.

Oh, and donations are not bribes, they are - donations.

[Sarcastr0]

The White House needs a ballroom!

LOL.

[Frank Drackman]

I heard there was alot more "Balling" in the White House when William Juffuhson Clinton was in the Oral Orifice.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But he did his balling right there in the Oval Office. No need for a special room.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The italics clinches the deal. Come on.

[William of Brooklyn]

Is your argument that the nation cannot have an *indoor* space large enough for State dinners?

[Sarcastr0]

Is your contention that the nation does not?

Oh dear, did you believe a ThePublius assertion?
Rookie mistake.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is your contention that the nation does not?"

The East Room has a 200 capacity. Large state dinners have to use tents on the South Lawn.

These are facts, not an "assertion".

Lawn, tents. Very elegant. Ask you wife to walk on your lawn in heels.

Trump won't be president forever. He's not taking the new room with him.

[Sarcastr0]

The White House *needs* a ballroom is an assertion by TP.

Do you know how often we must host state dinners over 200 people, and whether there are any larger venues nearby?

Facts aren't going to get you to unilaterally wrecking the East Wing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The White House *needs* a ballroom is an assertion by TP."

You misspelled "opinion".

[Stephen Lathrop]

William of Brooklyn — My contention would be that the WH is doing just fine with state dinners as is. If anything, I don't want to encourage over-attendance. Keeps the guests on their toes to be judged important enough to admit. Pretty sure that when the attendance goes much past top policy makers and their consorts, the political utility of the social function begins to decline.

But to take your implied critique instead, do you have any comprehension what 90,000 square feet means? The biggest room in the palace at Versailles is ~ 20% that size. The only possible end a 90,000 square foot facility could serve would be to encompass a mass-shakedown-machine for political donors—who would soon learn to shun the invitations.

To give that much space full use as a hospitality venue would require st least 3,000 guests in attendance. A giant commercial ballroom in England accommodates about 3,500 in ~ 20,000 square feet.

[ThePublius]

" I don't want to encourage over-attendance. Keeps the guests on their toes to be judged important enough to admit. Pretty sure that when the attendance goes much past top policy makers and their consorts, the political utility of the social function begins to decline."

Well, when you become president you can manage state dinners however you want.

[Brett Bellmore]

This seems to be a common mistake: 90K square feet is the floor space of the entire several floors of the East wing after the renovation is done.

The ballroom itself will be 25K square feet, which is, admittedly still quite large, but not unprecedentedly so.

[William of Brooklyn]

The capacity will be 650.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is your argument that the nation cannot have an *indoor* space large enough for State dinners?

William of Brooklyn — It has one already. It seats 140 people. The biggest room in the palace at Versailles is only 20% as large as Trump's monstrosity.

And by the way, the models shown to the media have got to be dishonestly scaled back. You can visually compare the footprint of the modeled, "ballroom," to that of the modeled White House. Based on announced square footages, the, "ballroom," footprint should be at least several times the White House footprint, maybe 6 or 7 times as large. On the model, the "ballroom," is only barely larger. That cannot be accurate, and it cannot be an honest mistake.

[ThePublius]

Comparisons to Versailles are ridiculous. That palace was built before the age of international jet air travel. 140 is too small for banquets and other events for the presidential residence of the most powerful and significant country in the world. This is the 21st century, after all.

[ThePublius]

"A 2010 CNN clip of Obama’s $376 million White House renovation, fully funded by taxpayers unlike President Trump’s $250 million ballroom he’s paying for himself, is going viral as viewers call out Democrat hypocrisy and fake outrage."

https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1981172713202077901

[David Nieporent]

Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

Who authorized the renovation under Obama?

[ThePublius]

Sometimes whataboutism is entirely appropriate. In this case you bitch about Trump's addition to the White House, yet you were silent when folks on your team did the same, or more. It's pointing out your hypocrisy.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that Obama is not "my team," I just explained why it isn't the same. It was neither the same in what was being done (repairs vs constructing a new building), nor in how it was done (following the established process and getting approval from Congress, vs. the whims of the Mad King).

[ThePublius]

Oh, it doesn't, genius? We should continue to host guests and dignitaries in an ugly tent on the lawn?

Why are you such a jerk?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm sure the USSS loves the tents...

[Sarcastr0]

You're such a fucking hypocrite when it comes to civility.

There are places in the White House to host guests and dignitaries! How could you not know that?

[ThePublius]

That's not true, Sarcastr0? Have you been there? I have. The rooms are remarkably small for a head of state's estate. They have typically had to erect tents on the lawn to handle spillover crowds for state events like dinners.

[ThePublius]

Do you not detect the irony of using the f-word to call out someone else's apparent lack of civility? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

I've gotten 1 tour of the East Wing, quite some time ago.

Are you an expert? Do you think dignitaries are literally giants?

If you're thinking of larger delegations Blair House is the usual go-to, it's less than a block away.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building has some good rooms - the Indian Treaty room has always been nice; I try to stop in whenever I've had a meeting over there.

[ThePublius]

So, you're suggesting a distributed state dinner, where guests are simultaneously at different locations?

[Sarcastr0]

Where did I say something to make you think that?

State dinner is not the event you want to inquire about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Dining_Room_of_the_White_House

The State Dining Room is the larger of two dining rooms on the State Floor of the Executive Residence of the White House, the home of the president of the United States in Washington, D.C. It is used for receptions, luncheons, larger formal dinners, and state dinners for visiting heads of state on state visits. The room seats 140 and measures approximately 48 by 36 feet (15 by 11 m).

[David Nieporent]

Yes, because a bribe is money given in exchange for a benefit to the giver, and a donation is money given in exchange for a benefit to the giver, so one can totally see the difference.

[ThePublius]

That's doesn't make a lot of sense. You're foreclosing the possibility of gifts, at all. Every gift is a bribe according to you. How cynical.

[shawn_dude]

If the Whitehouse needs a ballroom, Congress can appropriate funds for it. That's the legal way to get this done.

I never thought I'd look fondly back on the simpler days when Republicans at least pretended to care about the law.

[ThePublius]

You're saying that building something funded by donations is not legal? Did you know that the Obama Presidential Center is funded exclusively by private donations raised by the Obama Foundation; no taxpayer funds are used for the construction. Did you know that JFK's White House renovations were primarily funded by private donations? Were those illegal? Should congress have appropriated funds for those?

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't Trump's private house.

You really want to live in a monarchy.

[ThePublius]

So, was it a monarchy when Truman renovated it?

[ThePublius]

You guys are truly ridiculous. You hate Trump so much that you find fault in every single thing he does.

He's making a much needed expansion and renovation to the White House, which is his residence, by the way, and much needed according to many, perhaps all but the Trump haters, and is funding it with private funds, and you're all bent out of shape because - of hate!

Many presidents have modified the White House: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, Obama, Biden - they all seem to have done it! Yes, to varying degrees, and probably not on Trump's scale since Truman, but they all did.

[Sarcastr0]

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

1. Necessity established by a study done by the Public Buildings Administration, and actual demonstrated failures.
2. Managed by a commission created specifically for that purpose by Congress.
3. Paid for via tax dollars, not private industries seeking Presidential favor.

That's how a public servant does things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That's how a public servant does things."

Studies and commissions only appeal to bureaucrats.

He identified a minor problem and acted. Its called leadership. You wouldn't understand.

Donations have along history concerning remodeling the White House. Jackie Kennedy for one. Nobody considered them "bribes" until Trump, another example of special Trump rules.

[Joe_dallas]

Martineed - it was gutted - from ai

Yes, the White House was gutted during President Harry S. Truman's presidency in a major reconstruction that took place from 1948 to 1952. The extensive renovation was necessary because engineers discovered the building was structurally weak and in danger of collapse due to years of neglect, outdated plumbing, and electrical wiring. The project essentially rebuilt the interior from scratch, reinforcing the original exterior walls with steel and concrete.

[jb]

Burn down, tear down; not sure the mechanism matters that much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has it occurred to anybody how close the Treasury Building is to the East Wing and that we have a lot more bullet-stopping building materials than they did 90 years ago?

I'm wondering if Trump's plans got expanded by the USSS...

[hobie]

Melania's office is in part of the East Wing that was destroyed. Ah MAGA, finishing what Al Qaeda couldn't.

[Riva]

Hey that's smart, JB. And very witty. Because everyone knows that no presidential administration has ever carried out any major renovations to the White House throughout its history. I know leftists are bastards, but do they have to be such stupid bastards?

[santamonica811]

I'm hoping that the reliable apologists for Trump here can jump in and defend him grabbing $230 million of my money (and your money) from the DOJ. Gotta admit that it's a neat trick. Install a few whores of his into the DOJ, make a crazy claim, get his whores to sign off, and walk away with a bucket of taxpayer cash. Trump really was playing chess while the rest of us were playing checkers.

It almost makes the Qatar plane/bribe scheme seem quaint and sophisticated. This is much more of an "In-your-face, America," and a 'Fuck-You,Taxpayers,' sort of scam. I have to admit that I have a grudging respect for someone to has open contempt for everyone in America who pays taxes, and who just doesn't give a shit about showing it.

But I won't feel good about the whole thing unless a bunch of VC commentators explain how and why it's really okay that Trump is doing what he's doing, and why his whores at Justice are actually not whores and lickspittles.

Please do not let me down. I have a $5 bet with a friend about who will be leaping to Trump's defense . . . don't be shy, guys! (Come on Riva! Come on Ed! You can do it; you can do it!!!) 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Here’s Doctor Frankie’s Prescription,
Hold your nose, cross your legs and fart, it’ll clear out your mind!

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is a democracy.

Any American who is targeted by the government, as Trump was, has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing malicious prosecution or other claims.

And any natural born citizen over 35 has a right to run for office and attempt to convince the American people that he's the best person to head the branch of government that adjudicates those claims.

Why do you hate democracy?

[Sarcastr0]

This was Trump petitioning himself.

That’s nit a democracy, it’s king shit.

Why do you pretend to not know the difference?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It was? When were the complaints filed?

[Sarcastr0]

Why would when it was filed matter?

Trump is approving a request by Trump. That's what's happening.

This isn't normal process. This has nothing to do with democracy. It's just Trump asking Trump if he can loot the treasury because of how unfair Trump's been treated.

Don't debase yourself by...well, too late.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're the one who said Trump was petitioning himself.

Why shouldn't the be entitled to make a claim that everybody else is entitled to make?

[William of Brooklyn]

Sarcastr0, I agree that Trump should not petition himself. This is the same principle wherein a sitting president cannot be federally indicted, as he would be indicting himself. It's also the same principle under which federal, state and local employees should not have the same labor powers as private employees, as FDR made clear:

August 16, 1937

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[Frank Drackman]

OK, here’s how to make Trumps Shit Sandwich taste better…..
Pretend the $230,000,000 is “Reparations” to the 70,000,000 who had their votes “nullified” in 2020, that’s a little over $3/cheated voter, a bargain at any price.

Frank

[AmosArch]

The claim was filed before he was reelected.
You go high when you ask for money. Because you usually won't get anywhere near that amount.
Trump when asked did not specify that he would take that amount.

When the government attacks you out of political reasons are you supposed to just play nice and let bygones be bygones because you psychically know you will be elected President in the future and it would be then possible that it could be spun as improper if the government gave you the money you are rightfully owed? Maybe I missed this in the ethics handbook.

As for dropping it now..which he very well might still do....but if he truly believed he was wronged and he believed that the DOJ would consider it in what he believes is fair terms and there is no law against what he was doing, then this is essentially losing money and make it look like his critics are right and he's backing down from a personal raid on the coffers. All simply for a dice roll that the optics of 'Trump pilfers $230 million dollars' vs 'brave Dems stop Trump from pilfering $230 million dollars' looks better enough to matter . And what does that really matter when he's megaHitler no matter what?

If Trump really wanted to raid the nation's coffers to get ahead he should learn from the masters in the Dem party on stealing hundreds of billions to build the massive spoils system public bureaucracy beholden to them, while his Administration is just hiring and firing a few guys from the top like amateurs. Or waging a war on the population by systematically replacing them with foreign loyalists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He could always donate it -- some of his libel winnings are being donated to fund the White House Ballroom.

[Martinned]

Yes, "winnings" are being "donated", wink, wink.

[David Nieporent]

None of his libel winnings are being donated to anything, because he had no libel winnings.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're such a stickler for language when you want to be.
"Donald Trump did not personally donate the ABC settlement; instead, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to his presidential library as part of the settlement for a defamation lawsuit. This payment is described as a "charitable contribution" to a non-profit organization related to the library. PBS Wikipedia"
Does ABC get to write that off?

[Magister]

That's money from extortion, not libel winnings.

[Mr. Bumble]

I never said it was.

[Magister]

So, your point is that Donald Trump did not donate money (to his own presidential library and self-aggrandizement monument), and that the money not donated by Donald Trump was not libel winnings. What relevance to that reply, then?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does this mean I'll have detention?

[Magister]

No, it means that Bumble looks like an idiot, as usual.

[Sarcastr0]

he believed that the DOJ would consider it in what he believes is fair terms

Even with the most weasel words you could possible include, this sentence is a laugh.

there is no law against what he was doing
The new GOP standard of decency - there's no law against the President looting the treasury so it's cool.

And if there were a law, there are plenty on here to do some originalism to show the Founders intended otherwise.

[AmosArch]

well when an all powerful organization starts moving heaven and earth in a singular all obsessive mission to destroy you costing you a ton of money which you might need later since your enemies are ready to immediately resume the jihad against you and your children and your children's children the second they resume power and later on through circumstance you suddenly find yourself in charge of said organization. You can show us all how it should be done by forgiving the debt at absolutely no benefit not even a PR one since your enemies will just spin it as a victory in foiling your greed.

[Martinned]

Maybe Trump should have thought of that before he did all that crime. You do the crime, you do the time. (Unless you get yourself elected president, because then you're above the law.)

[hobie]

We have different levels of justice here, Martin.

[hobie]

When you submit fraudulent documents to the National Archives to steal an election, or hide classified docs while under order of subpoena, thems are crimes mister. Are you saying we shouldn't prosecute crime?

[AmosArch]

The Dems and their allies spent the entire 2016 term trying to throw Trump out of office to the neglect of every other duty by throwing everything against the wall to see if it stuck rather than any genuine intent to pursue justice. How do we know its the former? Because they were almost always found to have been guilty of the same supposed crimes they were chasing Drumpf for: Keeping docs in their bedroom, sitting around during a riot they supposedly could have stopped etc etc thats now suddenly okay when they're doing it 10x as much as Trump allegedly did and was also okay when they were doing it 10x as much before Trump. So spare me the defender of law and order bit. None of it tops trying to get what even hardcore Dem would agree is a half dead corpse to be in charge of the nuclear button.

[DDHarriman]

Notice how Obama's DOJ funneling these types settlement awards to radical Leftwing terror groups didn't cause out "looting the treasury" Chicken Little routines.

[Sarcastr0]

So who cares that Trump asked Trump for money from the treasury, you think the deserves it!

Come on, man. The question isn't whether Internet MAGA shouter thinks Trump deserves it.
You're overdetermined to think Trump deserves everything.

But I guess a big precept of MAGA is only MAGA matters. It's a terrible way to run a republic, but they've always had issues with the e pluribus unum/republican form of government part of American greatness.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So who cares that Trump asked Trump for money from the treasury,"

AGAIN, Trump wasn't President when the claim was filed. You think the fact that he got reelected means that he shouldn't be paid what he was owed?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's approving the claim. That's the material consideration.

Super sloppy thinking sure crops up as needed for you to defend this guy you claim not to like.

paid what he was owed?
Trump being paid what he's owed according to Trump.

You'd think this clear self-dealing would raise some objections. But so far zero MAGA people have done anything but throw up chaff to try and defend the indefensible.

[bernard11]

Wow, Brett.

Believe it or not, I didn't think you were so intoxicated with Trump as to support this.

He filed a claim before the election. Big fucking deal. Normally, when one files a claim, it is heard by an objective decision-maker - judge, magistrate, who knows?

Here the claim is being "heard" by his own flunkies, and you don't see a damn thing wrong with that. Unfucking believable.

You MAGAts really are unthinking Trump tools.

I suppose you fiscal hawks think it's a fine thing for idiot Kristi Noem to spend $170M on new Gulfstreams, too.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I think is that if he has a valid claim to have his legal expenses refunded, that claim didn't vanish just because he won the election.

I'll gladly admit that the optics of it are horrible, and it is fraught with all sorts of conflicts of interest.

[Sarcastr0]

As is often the case, you functionally admit nothing, if you think any claim can still be valid given this level of conflict.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no NEED. Trump doesn't need the money.

No amount of partisan hot take demonizing the judiciary and Dems and whole non-MAGA country will excuse Trump just taking money from the treasury.

There really is no bottom with your nihilism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . that claim didn't vanish just because he won the election.

Right, because it's Trump. Any prior president would have made damn sure that claim would never have been considered by his own administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's true. It's also true that any prior President wouldn't have NEEDED to do so, because no prior President was subjected to this sort of unrelenting lawfare.

Unprecedented attacks result in unprecedented defenses.

So, sure, there's a lack of decorum here. How much decorum do you expect from somebody you set out to systematically destroy?

[bernard11]

I didn't set out to destroy Trump, and neither did Stephen.

And neither did Biden. Get it through your paranoia-befogged head that Trump committed crimes (and leave the stupid whatabouts - they've been refuted hundreds of times) and the investigations were justified.

Does he have a reasonable claim? I don't know, though I suspect not. You don't know either. But if he does let him advance it when he's out of office.

[jay.tee]

and the investigations were justified.

The FBI, Judge Boasberg, Downer, et al, disagree with you. And since the fabricated predicate for the FISA warrants was debunked, most of the rest of the “justifications” did as well.

Of course, instances where the FBI charged ahead full steam to find predicate were never justified.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI, Judge Boasberg, Downer, et al, disagree with you.

They do not. Why would Boasberg or Downer be opining on whether investigations of Russia and Donald Trump were justified? And telling us that Trump's appointees at the FBI claimed the investigations were unjustified doesn't even rise to the level of bad faith.

And since the fabricated predicate for the FISA warrants was debunked, most of the rest of the “justifications” did as well.

The only thing that was "fabricated" was one sentence in one email that wasn't used until the 3rd renewal of the FISA warrant.

[jay.tee]

Pure, unmitigated denialism. I’ve posted tons of primary-source documents proving this. Not my fault you prefer to remain ignorant.

Each of the FISA applications contained known falsehoods and omitted known exculpatory information. For example, the first contained a deliberately altered “statement” from Alexander Downer. After that came the knowingly false Steele dossier, and so on.

[bernard11]

I'll gladly admit that the optics of it are horrible, and it is fraught with all sorts of conflicts of interest.

Your usual, "I don't like what Trump is doing, but I agree with his goal, so everything is just fine."

Here's the thing, Brett. If you object to what he is doing, don't shrug at it because you like the ends. That way, despite all your crawfishing, you let the ends justify any means.

And what happens the next time he decides he has a claim? Fine if his flunkies handle that one too? You've blinded yourself.

What if Trump just announced his claim was valid, and wrote himself a check on the Treasury with no formalities whatsoever? That's not far from what he is doing, of course, but would you approve of that?

Might you at least say his claim ought to be heard by an impartial decisionmaker, after he is out of office?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk011WMM7t0

(Air Bud)

[hobie]

More acceptable self-dealing payouts. We paid off Trump Militia members for services rendered: Proud Boys, Tiny Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt...so why not the ringleader?

[Frank Drackman]

You got that wife beating drug addict, (Saint) Floyd George.

[hobie]

See, Frankie. It's perfectly fine speaking ill of the dead. Especially when they were scumbags.

[hobie]

Bro, you need to be patient. It's early in the morning, and even though this is the frontpage headline at NY Times/CNN/Post, I see that it is not mentioned anywhere at WSJ/Breitbart/Townhall/National Review [I'm sure that's just innocent oversight], so our hillbillies here probably have not heard about it yet. Such is bubble in which they live. Sad.

[Martinned]

Wait, I thought the MSM were all in the Democratic Party's pocket? What happened to that?

https://reason.com/2025/10/21/biden-press-secretary-gets-skewered-by-stephen-colbert-for-defending-bidens-fitness/?nab=1

[Frank Drackman]

They are and Nothing, any more stupid questions, stupid?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Wait, I thought the MSM were all in the Democratic Party's pocket?"
They aren't? Colbert is the MSM?
Why is he throwing the black lesbian under the bus? Is it because she now claims to be an Independent?

[Martinned]

Colbert is the MSM?

He was when you were all cheerleading when he got fired.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, he's still on the air, isn't he?
Late night TV is not what it used to be and the show will be cancelled next year and replaced with something else.
From Colbert:
"“It’s not just the end of our show, but it’s the end of The Late Show on CBS,” he said. “I’m not being replaced. This is all just going away. And I do want to say … that the folks at CBS have been great partners. I’m so grateful to the Tiffany Network for giving me this chair and this beautiful theater to call home. And of course I’m grateful to you, the audience, who have joined us every night.”

[Martinned]

Yes, the Regime successfully managed to get Colbert yanked off the air. It's only when they tried it with Kimmel that they got in trouble.

[Frank Drackman]

Colbert yanked off the air?? What was he broadcasting on then, Telegraph????

[Dr. Ed 2]

A re-run of the 7 PM news is free.

[Michael P]

Perhaps this will help you understand:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/karine-jean-pierre-leaves-democratic-party-after-serving/story?id=122501565

[Martinned]

Ah, so the conspiracy remains intact!

[John F. Carr]

After the plan backfired it's OK to bring out the knives.

[Sarcastr0]

The counterexample is just more proof of the conspiracy.

[Michael P]

Very little says "I am not a secret Nazi" as effectively as having a large Nazi tattoo on one's chest.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/21/us-news/maine-senate-candidate-graham-platner-addresses-nazi-linked-tattoo/

[Martinned]

Yes.

https://newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the-crusading-obsession-of-the-far-right/

[DDHarriman]

Whatabout!

[Martinned]

I'm sorry. Are you arguing that the Trumpist Nazi should get to be Secretary of Defence while the Maine Nazi shouldn't get to be a Senator? Is me arguing for consistency somehow confusing you?

[Joe_dallas]

As expected - martineed misrepresents the meaning of the two distinctly different tatoo's

[Frank Drackman]

It’s a fucking Cross, I’m Jewish and it doesn’t bother me. Make it a Ham-Ass one like Mandamnhe has and it’s different.

[ThePublius]

Since when is a Christian symbol evocative of Nazism?

[Michael P]

Since it's required to whatabout a Republican, of course.

[Martinned]

Since Nazi's and Neo-Nazi's do all sorts of weird religious shit.

https://www.str.org/w/nazi-paganism

[Malika la Maize]

Since when indeed!

https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/celtic-cross

[Michael P]

Do all those crosses look the same to you?

This is what Hegseth has, according to eurotrash's whatabout link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_cross

[Sarcastr0]

Big chest tattoo is not how you do secret anything.

But yeah, this guy's cooked.
Primaries can be good sometimes!

[Brett Bellmore]

Haven't you repeatedly argued that the mere fact that something somebody does would be a totally futile and even counter-productive way to advance a given objective doesn't mean anything?

[Sarcastr0]

1. No, I've said attempt is still a crime, not that it's the exact same crime as commission. IOW I'm aligned with longstanding criminal law precepts.

2. I said he's cooked. I said I'm glad the primary weeded him out. I'm not sure what else you think I gotta say.

[Brett Bellmore]

When it comes to J-6, you've insisted that Trump MUST have been attempting a coup, and that the break in at the Capitol had to be part of Trump's supposed plan to physically intimidate Congress into going along with changing the EC vote. Despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence Trump directed the break in, despite people who'd been under heavy surveillance having been convicted of planning it, despite the obvious fact that the invasion of the Capitol would actually cause Congress to dig in their heels and refuse.

You just start from the presumption that Trump had to be guilty, and if the supposed actions were ill suited to your claimed ends for him, it just meant that he was guilty and stupid.

And yet, here you seem to think that nobody could be a secret Nazi and be stupid enough to get a tattoo... Only people you don't like can make stupid choices?

[Sarcastr0]

New goalposts. You posted about the law, I answered you, and now you're relitigating facts about J6.
I'm not gonna engage; there's no point in trying to correct you yet again on that front.

But it does say something that in response to my saying that a big chest tattoo is not how you keep something secret, you start rating about J6 and how Trump is innocent.

FFS even the Republican Nazis aren't being secret Nazis, they're open Nazis!
What is your problem that everything's gotta be a secret?

[not guilty]

"1. No, I've said attempt is still a crime, not that it's the exact same crime as commission. IOW I'm aligned with longstanding criminal law precepts."

Actually, there is not a general attempt statute in federal criminal law. Several statutes make an attempt punishable to the same extent as a completed offense, but the particular statute in question must be parsed to see whether that is so.

And many states make criminal attempt subject to a lesser penalty than a completed offense.

[bernard11]

It might - often does - mean that the person is incompetent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh. Maybe that tattoo wasn't a drunken mistake after all?

Maine Senate candidate promoted violent political action in since-deleted online posts

"Graham Platner, who is running as an insurgent Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, once suggested in online posts that violence is a necessary means to achieving social change — comments now drawing scrutiny in an era of increased political violence.

Platner, 41, a former Marine and combat veteran who now raises oysters, made the statements on Reddit in 2018, long before he emerged as a serious candidate to take on Republican Sen. Susan Collins in the midterms.

If people “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history,” he wrote in one since-deleted post. In another, he said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”

CNN first reported Thursday on Platner’s participation on the subreddit r/SocialistRA, alongside other Reddit forums where he called himself a “communist” and said that “all” police are bastards. All of the posts have been deleted."

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to know how a Maine Hippie can come up with over $4M in campaign donations in a week.

He's pulling in $52K in disability for PTSD -- tax free -- good money for Hancock County, Maine.

He's not "FROM" Maine...

[hobie]

Agreed. You promote Nazi ideology or hate on gays or Jews, you should be outta there.

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Agreed. You promote Nazi ideology or hate on gays or Jews, "

Which has been the democratic party's behavior for quite some time. It become front and center after the hamas attack in oct 2023.

[Malika la Maize]

Indeed!

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/20/paul-ingrassia-racist-text-messages-nazi-00613608?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR7-gNfneXjdqC91WnDl-eVzq3tk_NblqsSoP5GoTRFfwa9pqYdFdbjngVq6Sw_aem_lksl4IIHa7f0KaCP7TVoDA

[Joe_dallas]

let pretend all the pro hamas protests since oct 2023 never happened.

[hobie]

I'd love to see an article about a protest promoting Hamas. You got one?

[Joe_dallas]

Intentionally lying ?
Intentionally ignorant?
Which is it?

quite prominent and quite frequent on many college/ universities, especially the Ivy League schools.

[Don Nico]

You self-identify as a fool with that post.

[David Nieporent]

Let's pretend that Hamas supporters were Democrats. They're left of center, of course — waaaaaay left — but they hate the Democratic Party.

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie’s worried about Nazi-linked things now?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/21/the-gesture-speaks-for-itself-germans-divided-over-musks-apparent-nazi-salute

[Sarcastr0]

Michael ain't one for consistency, or caring much about Nazi shit when they're Republicans.

[hobie]

Says Platner is 41 and he got the tattoo 20 years ago which made him a toddler at the time. Unlike the 29 year olds in the Young Republican who were children.

[ThePublius]

A 21 year old is a toddler? Maybe among lefties.

[hobie]

Jeesus, Publius. Every damn day my next-level sarcasm/snark has to be explained to you. You ain't too bright, are you?

[Malika la Maize]

You should read some news outside your echo chamber.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/15/jd-vance-racist-messages-young-republicans-chat-leak

[Frank Drackman]

1: it’s not that large
2: it’s a “Totenkopf” literally “Deathhead” and has been a symbol used by Warriors as long as we’ve been killing each other, he got it as a Marine going into combat, like you’d understand any of this

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

What do the left-leaning Progressives think of the Alien & Sedition Act and the press censorship of the Adams/Jefferson/Madison Administrations? Do they even know about it?

Watching all this No Kings stuff, I'm wondering if they just don't know our history.

[Martinned]

I suspect they probably didn't go to schools that used a bible for history class, like in Oklahoma. Instead, they probably learned history from actual history books, which presumably featured the discussions around the Alien & Sedition Acts fairly prominently.

Why do you ask? Did you only find out about that story recently?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watching their antics and reading their signs, it's like they never heard of the prior 44 Presidents.

Woodrow Wilson's wartime censorship...

[Malika la Maize]

Uh, the left has criticized the original Sedition Act for a long time.

“We have a striking illustration from those early days of the Republic. The First Amendment was so little observed that hardly seven years after it went into effect Congress passed a law, the Sedition Act of 1798, which indeed did abridge the freedom of speech, and with such vigor as to send ten persons to jail for their utterances. One could hardly claim that the First Amendment was being enforced.” Howard Zinn

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You note the reply was included to show that leftists covered this ground. But to be clear, there was a big debate at the time over the meaning of the First Amendment. The debate over the laws helped develop the accepted meaning of "freedom of speech," which originally often had a more restrictive meaning.

[Michael P]

For the most part, anything they know about it comes from bad history of the sort that washed-out newspaper editors would defend for purely partisan reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Zinn is great for covering critical thinking, including stuff Zinn gets wrong that was accepted wisdom when he published.

Something the speaker in your liked piece seems to utterly miss:
In substituting one buttoned-up interpretation of the past for another, Wineburg finds, A People's History and traditional textbooks are mirror images that relegate students to similar roles as absorbers – not analysts – of information

Yeah, if you're *substituting* Zinn for standard history texts, you're doing it wrong. But I'm quite skeptical that's how Zinn is being used.

[Malika la Maize]

I used Zinn here in response to Ediot’s question about whether lefties had heard of the Sedition Acts. Not a fan myself, but leftist historians cover that quite a bit.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I think everyone should read there Zinn! It's a great lesson in the perspective of people without a voice, and itself provides plenty of insights.

I mean, can anyone deny what he wrote about the A&S Acts?

I'm not reading Ed right now; he started hilarious now he's just tedious.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Zinn is great"

You are insane.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say I agree with him, I said he's great.

You wouldn't understand.

[bernard11]

Bad history?

The US right is the world champion promoter of bad history.

[DDHarriman]

Well Dr. Ed, there weren't radical leftwing billionaires back then funding insurrection like there are today.

[Malika la Maize]

But duz he haz laptop?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/20/opinion/gambling-investing-gaming-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vE8.ANDM.44_GXSC5WFnV&smid=url-share

Before the 2024 election, numerous agencies were keeping a close eye on the companies offering new ways to bet. In 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Robinhood a record $70 million for providing false or misleading information to users, among other infractions. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (C.F.T.C.) had restricted prediction market bets on election outcomes, dubbing such contracts a form of gambling.

That scrutiny has all but vanished. Following the same playbook it used for cryptocurrencies, another popular gambling vehicle, Mr. Trump’s family is cashing in on the very business his administration oversees. In January, Kalshi hired Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Trump’s son, as a paid strategic adviser. And the venture capital firm where Mr. Trump Jr. serves as a partner made a multimillion-dollar investment into Kalshi’s rival Polymarket, where he has also joined the advisory board.

The administration has gutted oversight of prediction markets and online gambling. Since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the C.F.T.C. has cut staff by 15 percent and dropped a third of its open investigations.

[Martinned]

You don't understand, Donald Trump jr. is an expert on prediction markets, so his strategic advice is worth every cent they're paying him!

[Malika la Maize]

Why does Trump hate rural NC white people?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/10/21/north-carolina-helene-fema-payments/

Lynn Austin keeps running the numbers, and they don’t look good. Since Hurricane Helene devastated her community in western North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains, the county government has spent nearly $50 million on cleanup and recovery — while getting reimbursed only $4 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency…

More than a year after Helene, Yancey and other storm-battered counties across this region are still waiting for the federal government to make good on its promises to pay back millions upon millions of dollars that local officials have spent or allocated for recovery. The process has been agonizingly slow and unusually complicated, Austin and officials from other counties say. That delay has upended local budgets and hindered reconstruction.

Recovering from a major disaster takes years at best, and navigating FEMA’s bureaucracy has always been arduous, but the Trump administration has instituted new layers of red tape that have made it even harder for communities, especially ones with small staffs and budgets, to recoup the unprecedented sums they have had to spend since Helene.

[Sarcastr0]

The fast lane is to appeal directly to the President, with effusive praise and some kind of personal gift.

But they went to the Washington Post. Now they won't get nothin'!

What a great democracy we got.

[Malika la Maize]

Remember when Biden not immediately solving the problems there was proof he hated rural white people?

[Michael P]

Those of us with functioning brains remember that "throughout the Biden Administration, FEMA employees systematically refused to visit the houses of disaster survivors that displayed signs and flags they disagreed with, including those with campaign signs supporting President Trump—textbook political discrimination against Americans in crisis."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/21/dhs-exposes-how-fema-officials-under-biden-administration-systematically-refused

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie doesn’t like politics involved in FEMA responses?
From the same article:
Some officials within FEMA pointed to aid that moved after governors and lawmakers — generally Republicans — made direct appeals to Trump and Noem.

In August, Wisconsin endured severe storms and floods. The next month, Trump said on Truth Social that after speaking with Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican, he was approving $29.8 million in disaster relief, adding that he “had Huge Victories in Wisconsin in 2016, 2020, and 2024.” (Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 and 2024 but lost in 2020.)…

FEMA has obligated $132 million for Helene debris removal in North Carolina, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the agency as of Oct. 20. It has obligated five times that amount for Georgia, or $690 million, as well as $192 million for Florida and $159 million for Tennessee.

(Guess which of those four has a Democrat governor!)

[Riva]

That’s an absurd comparison. No aid has ever been denied to a state or locale by the Trump administration for political purposes. Under President Trump, FEMA agents are not denying aid to citizens who are Democrat supporters in Georgia, Florida, Tennessee or any state. Those sick political games were played by the Biden administration. And of course Obama.

In fact, President Trump’s efforts to help Democrat jurisdictions with their mostly self created crime problems have been consistently obstructed. By Democrats. Ask DC.

[Magister]

No aid has ever been denied to a state or locale by the Trump administration for political purposes.

No, that was exactly what happened in the first Trump administration.

[jay.tee]

Might have happened, and given Trump’s pettiness, I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. However, as we’ve repeatedly seen, ex Trump 45 Administration officials are hardly reliable sources. Also, the data cited in the article appears to contradict the claim:

Trump approved 89 disasters in states that opposed him, including 17 in California — more than any state, an E&E News analysis of FEMA data shows.

More than 80 percent of the disaster requests that Trump denied came from governors of states that he won in 2016, an E&E News analysis of FEMA data shows.

[Magister]

It did happen, repeatedly; other examples during the pandemic response, from a variety of sources.

[jay.tee]

from a variety of sources

Please do share!

[Riva]

Try never happened. As compelling as the reporting of a biased British tabloid may be to the TDS deranged and some paid and volunteer trolls, actual Inspector General level reporting CONFIRMS the repulsive Biden Administration abuses.

[Malika la Maize]

“FEMA agents are not denying aid to citizens who are Democrat supporters in Georgia, Florida, Tennessee or any state”

lol, bot is in bad need of diagnostics (the point of that blurb was that those three states with GOP governors but less damage got more money than NC with its Democratic governor).

[Sarcastr0]

You keep posting shit from this administration like it has any truth value.

DHS lies. Constantly. Here, they take an old debunked story and just say the same shit in it again.

To review, because your brain has selective partisan amnesia:
-One lower level employee.
-They were disciplined.
-GOP Republicans asked for docs and tried to make more of a thing about it last year; didn't go anywhere because there wasn't anywhere more to go.

You're a tool so you uncritically believe whatever DHS shits out. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
You could Google you know, just to check if you weren't being a sucker yet again.

[ThePublius]

Lying again.

It wasn't just one FEMA employee. And it wasn't just in NC, it was in Florida as well.

"The audit stemmed from a former FEMA official who instructed disaster relief workers in Florida to "avoid homes" with signs endorsing Trump. Marn'i Washington would later say her directive of "best practices" was not "isolated" and in fact was widespread and happening in the Carolinas as well in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. She also said she was being made a scapegoat over a policy she was following, not creating.

A former FEMA official lent support to Washington's claims, telling the New York Post that the pattern of skipping Trump-supporting houses has been an open secret at FEMA for years."

"In North Carolina, the Committee is aware of reports of FEMA employees skipping any home that displayed a 'Make America Great Again,' 'Drain the Swamp,' 'Don't Tread on Me,' or Trump campaign sign," Graves and Perry wrote in a 3-page letter to Cuffari on Dec. 3. "If the FEMA field team encountered three or more of these signs, the field team could abandon the entire neighborhood without notifying hurricane victims of assistance available to them."

https://perry.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=403129

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all know you love to Google to find things. And how well that goes for you.
How many times have you posted some Rep or other grandly announcing a big investigation as though it was proof of anything?

Was there any result from this grand audit, given all the things they claimed going in? Any progress since this announcement in January?

You gotta stop this Googling for the answer you want and just posting whatever trash you find.

[jay.tee]

Posted above were the results of an investigation by the DHS Privacy Office, and it documented an organized, systemic pattern of politicization by FEMA that stretched well beyond a few bad apples.

The investigation revealed that FEMA engaged in troubling overreach, violating the Privacy Act of 1974 and disregarding the DHS Fair Information Practice Principles by improperly collecting and maintaining records tied to Americans’ First Amendment activities. This conduct demonstrated a failure to protect data integrity and fairness in disaster relief decisions, a lack of transparency and
accountability, and a refusal to report privacy breaches. The Privacy Act was enacted precisely to prevent the secret accumulation of information on citizens and the creation of hidden government databases—tactics that undermine fundamental rights and fuel distrust in federal agencies. The
findings also exposed widespread gaps in FEMA’s policies, processes, and procedures, resulting in systemic violations that unfairly targeted individuals across the country. The prohibited collection of constitutionally protected information underscores a pattern of weaponizing federal power against Americans and abusing the trust placed in government institutions.
FEMA’s actions could lead to the erosion of public trust in FEMA’s delivery of disaster relief and contribute to the perception that FEMA is biased in how it carries out its mission by only aiding those with certain political beliefs.

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDHS/2025/10/21/file_attachments/3429397/FEMA%20Privacy%20Investigation%20Report%20For%20PDF.pdf

[Malika la Maize]

We all know how this administration pressures its bureaucrats to find politically approved conclusions.

[jay.tee]

We all know how this administration pressures its bureaucrats to find politically approved conclusions.

Unless you’re aware of specific political influence Trump or his appointees brought to bear on this investigation, neither you nor “we” know of any pressure here.

In other words, please address the report’s findings with facts not your feels.

[David Nieporent]

Posted above were the results of an investigation by the DHS Privacy Office, and it documented an organized, systemic pattern of politicization by FEMA that stretched well beyond a few bad apples.

Unlike Michael P, who blindly reports things he's told, jay.tee just lies about what various reports and documents say. The Privacy Office investigation documents neither an organized nor systematic pattern of politicization by FEMA that stretched well beyond a few bad apples; it documents exactly the opposite.

[jay.tee]

And as usual, you attempt to hand wave away something that impugns the sanctity of your Democratic Party.

These actions clearly occurred during the Biden Administration.

These actions clearly are unacceptable abuses by FEMA that indicate partisan influence.

These actions clearly stretched beyond a couple “bad apples.”

I object to any partisan influence in FEMA no matter who is targeted. Your hand waving and deliberate misrepresentations indicate you don’t agree, - a disturbing position.

[Michael P]

No one expects the Gaslight0 inquisition! His chief weapon is lying. Lying, and name-calling. His TWO weapons are lying and name-calling ... and denialism. His THREE weapons are lying, name-calling and denialism, plus moving goalposts. Among his weapons are lying, name-calling, denialism and moving goalposts, and isolated demands for rigor.

I'll come in again.

[Riva]

You couldn’t be less believable Little Communist Girl That Never Smiled than if you had used an AI simulated Kamala Harris to slur out your post during one of the simulation’s brief sober moments.

[Malika la Maize]

I see Riva-bot, who posted invective is not argument recently, still not self-aware.

[David Nieporent]

As always, Michael P is too gullible to realize that press releases and facts aren't the same thing. Michael P's post reasonably accurately summarizes Kristi Noem's press release. But that press release in no way is supported by the actual supporting documents, which do not show that FEMA "systematically refused to visit the houses of [Trump supporters]." Indeed, those documents aren't even about that. This was a Privacy Office investigation; the Privacy Office only has as its purview data collection. It does not address skipping homes.

Not only that, but even wrt the topic within its purview — collecting inappropriate data — the report proves the opposite of its claim. It supposedly rebuts the notion that collecting this information was just an isolated incident, but here's the entirety of the rebuttal:

The DHS Privacy Office found that, in numerous instances, FEMA violated the Privacy Act of 1974 by collecting and maintaining information that was irrelevant and unnecessary to accomplish FEMA’s statutory purpose of providing disaster assistance.38

Evidence: The DHS Privacy Office examined screenshots of the tool that FEMA canvassers use to collect information from disaster survivors and data extracted from the tool’s database. The tool’s information indicated that canvassers included information related to political party affiliation, campaign signs, and other information related to freedom of expression.

"Numerous instances!" That's what passes for an investigation/evidence in the Trump administration! There's graphs on page 15 that show the actual number of instances. They show roughly a hundred (the numbers are different on different graphs, but all between 100 and 110) for the entirety of the four years of the Biden Administration. It is not 100% clear that this figure represents 100-110 separate residences, as opposed to double counting violations, but let's assume it does; it's still entirely consistent with a single rogue team, rather than a systematic thing.

Indeed, as the report notes:

While the DHS Privacy Office was unable to find evidence of a broader directive from FEMA leadership to bypass homes based on political affiliation, the DHS Privacy Office did find that FEMA has no guidance to address the issues involved in this investigation.

So… in other words, it was an isolated incident, not "the Biden Administration."

So, as with every other "scandal" pushed by MAGA, what this actually shows Is that there's no there there.

[jay.tee]

As usual, your post reveals your bad habit of denialism and misrepresentation to brush off or minimize the corruptions of Democrats and their administrations (or the corollary: fabricate or exaggerate the corruptions of Republicans and their administrations).

I responded to your screed above. It’s a shame you only selectively condemn governmental corruption.

[David Nieporent]

As usual, you tout various documents that never say anything remotely like what you pretend they say.

[jay.tee]

Sure David, which is why you tuck your tail and go silent after each subsequent debunking.

[David Nieporent]

You have a vivid fantasy life.

[jay.tee]

You have a vivid fantasy life.

I may, but of course that’s completely independent from your delusions.

[hobie]

I suppose you could still say that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict was a win. Although I see that it certainly wasn't done out of pure love of humanity. The US (re the Trump Clan) demanded 99 year development rights for the negotiated peace corridor between the two countries. As you hayseeds have bitched about for years, the US isn't/shouldn't be into developing other backwards-ass countries...but the Trump Clan sure is into it.

IRAN/ISRAEL NOPE
"Satellite imagery reveals ongoing work at Iranian nuclear site bombed by US"

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/30/middleeast/satellite-imagery-iranian-nuclear-site-latam-intl

INDIA/PAKISTAN NOPE
"India’s Modi tells Trump there was no US mediation in Pakistan truce"

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/18/indias-modi-maintains-there-was-no-us-mediation-in-pakistan-ceasefire

UKRAINE/RUSSIA NOPE
"On Ukraine and Russia, Lots of Talk but Little Has Changed"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/world/europe/ukraine-russia-trump-zelensky-meeting.html

ISRAEL/HAMAS NOPE
"Israel launched a wave of attacks on Gaza after accusing Palestinian militants of attacking its forces across cease-fire lines."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-ceasefire.html

[Malika la Maize]

You mean the Azerbaijan-Albania conflict?

[hobie]

No.

[Martinned]

It's sure pretty hilarious.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/european-leaders-caught-mocking-trump-false-claim-ending-war-rcna235194

[Malika la Maize]

https://euronews.al/en/trump-mixes-up-again-i-stopped-the-azerbaijan-albania-war/

[hobie]

Ah! I see what you did there. You know, Trump should demand several $BB from the treasury as compensation for all the dealing he's made.

[Martinned]

Maybe Congress should vote him a Nobel Prize, and give him an enormous (cartoon sized) prize money cheque to go with it.

[Don Nico]

Yup the NYT fronts for Hamas propaganda once again.

[Michael P]

Did the totalitarian No Democracy protesters on Saturday dress up in costumes because the situation is so dire that the only thing to do is wear cartoon animal costumes? Was it to cosplay something innocuous to hide their insurrectionist identity? Or did they dress as bananas to show that they really are bananas?

[Sarcastr0]

Rent free.

[hobie]

Michael is indeed a special guy.

[Frank Drackman]

Eddie Murphy used to have a great bit about how White People never realized there was anything unusual about Michael Jackson, he'd talk in that funny "White Guy Voice" (that he got from Richard Pryor)
"Yes, that Michael's a "Special Guy"!!!!!!"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

If anyone knows “special” it’s a Guy
)who Writes like Francis !

[Malika la Maize]

Political strategists on both sides of the aisle said the costumes are an effective way to protest the Trump administration.

Andy Barr, a Democratic strategist, compared the use of inflatable costumes to the time a man in a dolphin costume followed Mitt Romney around during the 2008 Republican primaries, accusing the presidential candidate of flip-flopping.

“Everything is so dark and kind of bleak that by making this sort of fun and funny and kind of a bit, you bring more people in,” Barr said.
Terry Sullivan, a Republican strategist, said that the use of inflatable costumes is “smart” and “gives extra legs to a story.”

“When you can give a visual example, it helps,” he said. “It’s trying to draw attention to the protests so that it doesn’t look and frame it in such a way that it’s not just a bunch of angry people with purple hair throwing rocks.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/19/inflatable-costumes-trump-protests/

[Michael P]

So it is "cosplay something innocuous to hide their insurrectionist identity" - or "frame it in such a way that it’s not just a bunch of angry people with purple hair throwing rocks" (even though it is).

[Malika la Maize]

From the article:

The costumes are being donned in part as a rebuke to Republicans portraying the events as “hate America” rallies and the Trump administration’s claims that blue cities like Chicago and Portland are riddled with crime.
“The silliness is the point,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist. “All these MAGA guys are out there going, ‘These cities are lawless, they’re dangerous.’ … It’s like you’re matching the absurdity of it.”

… Cain added that Trump’s portrayal of cities as violent is a “very important concept” as he seeks to expand executive authority and invoke emergency powers. Trump has repeatedly suggested he could invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to use active-duty forces trained for combat overseas or federalized National Guard troops to suppress a “rebellion.”

“If the president is going to invoke the Insurrection Act, he has to go to the court and show them, ‘Here’s some violence,’” Cain said. “It seems to me if you were going to start a fight you wouldn’t want to be looking like Mickey Mouse.”

[Michael P]

Yes, we already established that you and the WashPoo sources agree with the "cosplaying something other than their insurrectionist selves" hypothesis.

[Malika la Maize]

Where some people see making a mockery of Trump’s claims another sees a dark conspiracy, wait, what am I talking about, Mikie sees conspiracy everywhere on the left!

[Michael P]

You have a weird fixation on the lady who's probably going to lose the New Jersey gubernatorial election.

[Malika la Maize]

Pathetic deflection.

[hobie]

Does anyone want to be first to offer up the Q-Shaman, or should I get first crack?

[Michael P]

Did anyone recommend in advance that others emulate him? Did they?

There were a lot of insurrectionists cosplaying bananas, elephants, or whatever on Saturday, and they did that because of advance coordination.

[Malika la Maize]

Hilarious. There were viral moments of people in chicken or frog costumes making a mockery of Trump’s claims of insurrection and so people liked those suits a lot in recent protests. I’m sure some people that thought the chicken or frog or whatever moments were cool and sought out or suggested similar costumes but that’s hardly some grand conspiracy but how viral moments are capitalized on by political movements more likely.

[Michael P]

https://www.khou.com/article/news/nation-world/wearing-inflatable-costumes-protests/507-b841f764-006a-4fe9-89ed-6eb5a0e3c7bb

National protest organizers encouraged attendees to bring funny signs and wear silly costumes to keep the mood light during the event.

You can deny that there was advance coordination, but only because you are a denialist.

[Malika la Maize]

“or suggested similar costumes”

There’s no denial there. What there is though is an awareness that this isn’t evidence of some dark coordinated strategy, people see something on the internet or tv, they get interested, some seek out similar things some suggest it to fellow travelers, etc. You don’t think anyone in tea party rallies shared and suggested all the costumes that were worn during that?

[hobie]

Every day we have to teach Michael the basics of life/reality.

[David Nieporent]

"Organizers encouraged people to do X" is the opposite of "coordination" to do X.

[hobie]

Now be fair, Michael. Why can't we too have our own insurrection?

[Michael P]

I'm glad you are making that first step to recovery.

The next step is to realize that the previous insurrections were also yours, during the summer of 2020.

[DDHarriman]

All of a sudden the Left loves masks again.

[Michael P]

They've just traded white hoods for black bloc.

[Malika la Maize]

There is a party that really loves those hooded folks..

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

[Michael P]

You mean "supports a non-hooded bust of a guy who ordered those hoods destroyed"?

Forrest expressed disillusionment with the terrorist group's lack of discipline, and issued a letter ordering the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan as well as the destruction of its costumes; he then withdrew from the organization. Forrest later denied being a Klan member, and in the 1870s twice made statements in support of racial harmony and black dignity.

I guess the left only likes repentant KKK members if they talk about how many "white niggers" they have seen. And I note that there hasn't been a holiday for Forrest since 1969 -- Forbes is just too eager to throw red meat to the idiot insurrectionists to check the facts.

[Malika la Maize]

That Marxist rag Forbes!

“expressed disillusionment with the terrorist group's lack of discipline”

Quite the 180!

[hobie]

I never gave up my hood. I want them Confederate monuments re-erected and I want to be free from Jews replacing me. I also torment blacks and gays.

[Frank Drackman]

You torment everyone with your BO and Breath, including Dogs, Cats, and other woodland creatures.
It does have a "Survival Advantage" if you're ever stranded in the Desert no Buzzards will eat you. and the Cadaver Dogs will find you easily (Dogs eat shit, so no big surprise)
Seriously, they don't call you "Hobie-Stank" for nothing.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Michael -

'The bananas costumes. They are very sinister.

I'm a serious person.'

[Riva]

I would encourage the demented lunatics to Keep it up. It’s working so well to convince the public. Like a San Francisco pride march gone national.

[bernard11]

to hide their insurrectionist identity"

What a Trumpist piece of shit you are. And stupid to boot.

[Malika la Maize]

Also, Mikie is against costumes at political rallies now?

Google Images tea party rally costumes for a fun trip down protest memory lane!

[DDHarriman]

You should Google tea party rally costumes hoax conspiracy theory blue-anon bluesky

[Malika la Maize]

You take time away from The Daily Stormer for that?

[Frank Drackman]

You eat out guys assholes with that????

[hobie]

Is there any phobia Michael DOESN'T have?

[Sarcastr0]

Looking ridiculous online doesn't seem to phase him.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Looking ridiculous online doesn't seem to phase him."
Says one who should know.

[Michael P]

Yeah, they don't realize how insane they make the entire left look. They're just projecting and calling names because their own sources -- when they vaguely correspond to reality, rather than (say) pretending that a holiday cancelled 65 years ago still exists -- back up what what we say.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, you wrote this, for serious: "...the situation is so dire that the only thing to do is wear cartoon animal costumes."

You should probably do some reflection on how you get to a place to write, rather than trying to pivot to the Dems bad made you post it.

[Bwaaah]

Get a cogent thought together before you press Submit. Otherwise, you look like a reflexive automaton.

[Michael P]

I was going to suggest that he needs to be checked for stroke, but realized it's really a different kind of stroking: he's spent so much time mentally masturbating to leftist cant and sniffing his own farts that he thinks "how you get to a place to write" means something relevant, instead of ... how to get to a computer keyboard or place with mobile phone coverage or whatever.

[Sarcastr0]

Yup, fucked up my dunk on you by not proofreading enough even for the Internet. Fair put.

But you're the one that's gotta go back to their Banana Costume Leftist Conspiracy posts, so I still feel pretty good all things considered.

[Bwaaah]

Protesting leftists across the country wore dumb costumes. And that's a right wing conspiracy theory.

[apedad]

Robin Williams said it best, "Joke them if they can't take a fuck."

[Dr. Ed 2]

really are bananas...

[Michael P]

Then again, those cute inflatables don’t overshadow a protester yelling at ICE officers: “So when is someone gonna fucking murder you guys? It would do the world so much — I have a fantasy of beating your heads in.”

https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/activism-uncensored-no-kings-and

It truly is a mystery why the coordinators of these protests want attendees to cosplay as innocuous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that the 737 over Utah hit a weather balloon. Who's at fault?

This is 2025, why don't weather balloons have radar reflectors if not transponders or ACAS? ACAS would have told the plane to dive 500 feet.

[John F. Carr]

The regulations are in 14 CFR Part 101. I don't know about liability. I don't know if the small payload could include a big enough reflector to make a difference. Basic transponders are a few thousand dollars. TCAS is more expensive. The one price I found among all the "inquire for pricing" links was $30,000.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's a 737 cost? If it had hit the windshield in the center it could have been an explosive decompression. Pilots don't wear seat belts in cruse in calm weather, so one pilot might get sucked out -- it happened when someone used the wrong bolts to secure the windshield. Maybe both -- and then who lands the airplane?

If the radar is set to look at clouds, they won't have the resolution to pick up anything -- but if it were broadcasting on the radar frequency, a really big red dot? IDK. What would a simple non-adjustable transponder cost?

[John F. Carr]

Balloons are used in large quantities and collisions are rare.

Ground based radar uses 10 cm wavelength. Airborne weather radar uses 3 cm wavelength. A corner reflector larger than the wavelength will produce a good return signal, a dot on the screen.

[apedad]

Trump lawyers talking with DOJ about settlement for past investigations

President Trump on Tuesday confirmed his legal team is seeking money from his own Justice Department as compensation for past investigations into his conduct.

Trump was asked about a New York Times report that his legal team is demanding $230 million in compensation.

“I don’t know the numbers, I don’t even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I’m not looking for money. I would give it to charity or something,” Trump said.

https://www.fox16.com/news/trump-lawyers-talking-with-doj-about-settlement-for-past-investigations/

I'd gladly pay Trump $500,000,000 if he just goes away.

Take it Big Kahuna!

[Mr. Bumble]

"I'd gladly pay Trump $500,000,000 if he just goes away."
Hahahahaha.
No you wouldn't and the chance of you having $500,000,000 are none and none.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mr. Bumble — If Trump would agree to go away for $500,000,000 it would be trivial to raise the money. I could do it in a few hours, except that none of the billionaires I know would believe Trump wasn't lying.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lathrop has billionaire friends. Who knew?

[Magister]

He only mentioned the billionaires he knows, not that they were friends. And anyway the statement would be true if the billionaires he knows were an empty set, since he said what none of them would do.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you think he knows billionaire personally?

[Magister]

First you overreach with "friends", and now you don't understand "empty set".

[Mr. Bumble]

See his comment below.
"I have at least 3 billionaire friends,..."

[Magister]

Your response was to my comment before Stephen Lathrop replied. You went to "friends" straight off of his original comment that did not make such an assertion; you thought I asserted that he knows billionaire when I explicitly said "empty set".

I am willing to believe Stephen Lathrop on who he knows and is friends with; I have in the past and to my subsequent regret believed things that Dr. Ed 2 has written here.

I would disagree, that knowing billionaires is not as easy as he suggests; there are only 3028 billionaires in the world (according to Forbes). If every non-billionaire American knew exactly one billionaire, then each billionaire would have to know over a hundred thousand Americans (as I think it's reasonable to say that symmetry is required; you don't know someone if they don't know you) and that seems a stretch. (Knowing millionaires I would believe not uncommon; there are tens of millions of those.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Magister — It is not necessary to assume every American would have access to a billionaire. It could remain relatively easy for Americans who participate in public affairs to come in contact with one or more billionaires even if most Americans did not.

That has been my experience. Two of the billionaires I mentioned sought me out for their own reasons, taking me by surprise. One of those was the one with a world-wide reputation, so I knew immediately who I was dealing with. He was proposing to hire me. We got to know each other a bit, but I decided not to take the job. At the time, I thought I already had my dream job for life.

The other was someone who few would have mistaken for middle class, but it required long acquaintance even to get an inkling of the extent of wealth involved. As it turned out, we shared interests in certain public affairs, and in photographic art, and had mutually interesting athletic involvements from our younger days, so we got to know each other well. I confess that I remain uncertain whether he was actually a billionaire—we never discussed the extent of his wealth, but did discuss what he did to earn it—on that basis I think it likely. And you may notice the past tense. He is now deceased, so that part I fudged a bit for the sake of simplifying the task to make my point.

The third billionaire is someone I met during mutual public business, before he married into great wealth.

As I mentioned, I know other wealthy people, and cannot be sure some of them are not billionaires. If I were more interested in money myself, I might be better informed.

[Magister]

For anyone with any energy or agency at all, that is a very low bar. You may not want to do it, but if you choose to, you can.

That's you, saying that it's easy. Preceded by mentioning going to an elite college or interacting with people in high-level politics, and now involvement in public affairs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Magister — I take your comments to imply that I lived a goal-oriented life, or at least grasped advantages systematically. My oldest friends might tell you otherwise.

After graduating 103rd in my class at a good public high school, I did almost unaccountably get admitted to an elite college. Good test scores, obviously. I graduated following return from a 3-year drop-out interval. Then attended an elite graduate school, from which I also dropped out, turning my back on the most enriching academic training I ever got. The nation was in upheaval then, and so was I. I later got a vocational certificate from Boise State.

Along the way I accomplished at least professional status in 6 disparate careers: journalism; periodical publication; steel fabrication; typography; graphic design; and photographic art. With no intention to do it, I repeatedly entered into activities on the brink of technological overturn and decline. In that, I had company.

Almost everyone who knows me counts me as socially out of it. Two of my oldest friends have a son I have known since infancy. He learned as they happened about things which transpired in my life, thought it over as a young adult, and decided I reminded him of Forrest Gump. As he said, I seemed to keep showing up by accident in places where interesting stuff was happening.

That's how I saw it too. I have almost never been looking for the next thing which turned up. Always working obliviously on some project, and then taken by surprise, turned off course, and headed down some other trail.

Thus, as far as experience can teach, whatever can happen to me may prove similarly likely for many others. Unless those others plan better than I do (as, admittedly, many do), and end up excluding more surprises as a result. Mine has been a history self-biased against systematic advance, which I concede I enjoyed anyway, at least in respect to some.

Through all that, from my earliest memories until today, abiding focus on the natural world engaged me. That has been enduring, constant, but also an alienation from a society with attentions concentrated frustratingly elsewhere.

[Magister]

I make no assertion or implication about what sort of life you lead, beyond that for whatever reason you had more opportunity to know billionaires than most people would.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — Who knew? Not you, because you seem tone deaf, unimaginative, and solipsistic.

I have at least 3 billionaire friends, one of whom is a name familiar world-wide. I suspect I have more billionaire friends, but not all the rich people I know are so famous, and most are discreet.

In this day and age, do you think it is even a distinction to know rich people? The world abounds with them. If you have never attracted the notice of any rich people, that's maybe more a disgrace than otherwise, or maybe it does you credit. Depends on your frame of reference. As you may have noticed, my frame of reference tends not to glorify the rich.

Probably, anyone who ever attended an elite college knows billionaires. Anyone who ever interacted with people in high-level politics knows rich people. For anyone with any energy or agency at all, that is a very low bar. You may not want to do it, but if you choose to, you can. You don't really even need to go to college to get in touch with the rich. Do anything at all in public life, and they come to you.

I have more-interesting webs of contact to report than unnamed rich people. My life contacts give me two degrees of separation from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Joseph Pulitzer, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Burton Wheeler, Charles Lindbergh, John Foster Dulles, Wild Bill Donovan, Truman, Joseph McCarthy, Eisenhower, JFK, George H.W. Bush, Edward R. Murrow, Fred Friendly, Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradley, James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, and who knows how many others. Among other names of note, I have enjoyed particularly interesting one-on-one talk about politics with Alexander Kerensky, Averell Harriman, Tip O'Neill, Howard K. Smith, George W. Bush, Robert Bork, Frank Church, congresspeople, state governors, and Cord Meyer. That last may be a name you never heard of, but it's worth looking up just for the story.

Of course the way that degrees of separation game works needs consideration. Give some thought to what webs of contact fall into place if you converse with Harriman, or Smith.

You may notice those lists of names look more random than otherwise, and so they are. I chose them from many others to suggest the role of happenstance in the experience of everyone. But of course that list suggests—only somewhat deceptively in my case—the influence of social class. I was born into the lower middle class, but at a time and place where social mobility of some kinds was more-than-usually advantaged.

Someone less lucky, a black person born on the same day in the same hospital for instance, would have been almost precluded from any such lifetime webs of contact. But come to think of it, I would have to check carefully to see whether it would even have been possible for a black person to have been born in that hospital in downtown D.C. in 1946. Jim Crow had almost a decade more to run in D.C.

I owe academic gratitude to the memories of Richard Warch, Edmund Morgan, and to David Hall. Also to my near-contemporary Patricia Nelson Limerick,

You know what all that makes me on the scale of personal significance? A pipsqueak, just like you. Or maybe you are not a pipsqueak. After all, you are hiding behind a pseudonym, so I ought to be cautious.

I call your attention to the opinion of Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." That's us, now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, now they're friends?
Facebook friends?

[Dr. Ed 2]

We clearly need a billionaire's tax.

[mulched]

Naw, a billionaire's friend's tax should do it, since they're so common. A flat $100k for each billionaire you claim to be friends with.

It's a progressive tax too, but on pretentiousness instead of income.

[David Nieporent]

Mr. Bumble — If Trump would agree to go away for $500,000,000 it would be trivial to raise the money. I could do it in a few hours, except that none of the billionaires I know would believe Trump wasn't lying.

I mean, if Trump did resign, Vance would become president, so Peter Thiel would probably cough up the money all on his own.

[Mr. Bumble]

[Zarniwoop]

I laughed ... but you're not wrong.

[John F. Carr]

Those who sign off on the settlement need to watch their backs when Democrats regain power.

[bernard11]

Yes.

They will, after all, have been party to the theft of $230M.

Should that go unpunished?

[John F. Carr]

We are in the "might makes right" era. I happen to think people should resign rather than carry out the order for President Trump to pay Citizen Trump. Right and wrong aren't so important here. They won't be scared of disapproval. They will be scared of consequences.

[Krayt]

I'd gladly pay Trump $500,000,000 if he just goes away.

His opposition took $500 million to try to make him go away. The opposite tactic could hardly do worse.

[bernard11]

I would give it to charity or something,

What a fucking joke. Does any rational person believe this?

[Armchair]

Let's consider the first amendment and "Doxxing".

We had a conversation about it, and some people believe that the anti-Doxxing laws in several states (California, Oregon, etc), are unconstitutional. That they impede upon freedom of speech. On the other hand, certain limitations on freedom of speech are considered legal and legitimate. Threats, harassment, stalking, and intimidation are considered exceptions in many places.

So, let's consider doxxing. It's often considered the release of someone's personal information on the internet with the intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate them. Certain releases of public information don't cross this threshold. For example, the old White pages. It's the intent that really matters here.

So, consider, the public release of the names and home addresses of people who work in ICE facilities, intended to intimidate and harass these people. In those states with anti-doxxing laws, does this cross the threshold for what would be a constitutional restriction on the first amendment?

If you answer is yes, are there other laws you believe would be unconstitutional that might be considered "anti-harassment" laws?

[jay.tee]

Couple of questions since I’m not familiar with the technicalities of the anti-doxxing laws or other laws that involve intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate.

First, could anti-doxxing laws be considered prior restraint of activity otherwise covered by 1A?

Second, have other laws that are analogous to anti-doxxing laws, but concern other activities, been upheld? Specifically, the intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate provision? Anti-stalking laws? Laws authorizing restraining orders and the like?

Those would be my biggest concerns with the concept, not knowing how these laws have been written: 1A prior restraint, and how intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate is defined and proven.

[Armchair]

"First".
The short answer is yes. They could be considered prior restraint.

"Second, have other laws"
They have. Elonis v. United States provides a case example. This was in regards to a threat over the internet.

But, if you really want to think about it, consider Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth. This is a sexual harassment case. But in this case, the harassment was verbal. Does that impinge upon freedom of speech? Why or why not?

[not guilty]

"First, could anti-doxxing laws be considered prior restraint of activity otherwise covered by 1A?"

Yes, such laws do impose a prior restraint. Any prior restraint on expression comes before the courts with a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity. Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe,</i< 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). Prior restraints, however, are not unconstitutional per se. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975).

A system of prior restraint runs afoul of the First Amendment if it lacks certain safeguards: First, the burden of instituting judicial proceedings, and of proving that the material is unprotected, must rest on the censor. Second, any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only for a specified brief period, and only for the purpose of preserving the status quo. Third, a prompt final judicial determination must be assured. Southeastern Promotions, at 560; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-59 (1965). If a State seeks to impose a restraint of this kind, it must provide strict procedural safeguards. including immediate appellate review. Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay pending appeal. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 44 (1977).

[jay.tee]

Thank you, NG. I didn’t understand the technicalities, but the potential abuse of prior restraint is very concerning.

[Krayt]

Doxxing for me but not for thee.

At least it's come full 360. Years ago, a case in Washington went to the SC. To get a ballot initiative up, you need petitions, which includes home addresses.

Some activists wanted to get a list of signatories on some disfavored ballot initiative, and go harrass them. The state said no.

The SC ruled this was public info, and had to be, because The People needed to be able to verify the signatures themselves to make sure nobody's pulling a fast one.

But the SC expressed concern, as harrassment was the stated goal. No faceting faux concern for signature validity here. "Concern" is a hint for legislators they might want to do something.

It's funny, because the secret ballot's purpose is to avoid coercion of voters. Intimidation bad. Until it's good. Wait, which side are we on, and what is the issue?

[Krayt]

Who you vote for in the actual election is not recorded. That you voted is, and is public.

So...why is gathering up signature addresses and going to their house to protest fine, but standing outside a polling place and doing much less severe intimidation just horrrrrible?

[ducksalad]

https://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk?si=d01X216aVINVuijP

[shawn_dude]

I don't have an issue with releasing the names. I think all federal employees names should be public along with their salaries. That's certainly the case in many states, including my own, for state employees.

Addresses are another issue. I have concern about that.

Left unsaid but equally important: I don't think government employees (except in very specific circumstances) should be allowed to hide their identity.

[Armchair]

"I think all federal employees names should be public along with their salaries."

All federal employee names and their salaries are public.
federalpay.org/articles/employee-lookup

"Addresses are another issue. I have concern about that."
...indeed...

""I don't think government employees (except in very specific circumstances) should be allowed to hide their identity."

Perhaps when they are actively being identified for harassment at their home addresses?

[David Nieporent]

Can you identify even three instances in the last decade of ICE employees being harassed at their homes (harassed by activists because of their jobs, I mean — not by an ex-spouse or something like that)?

[Armchair]

1. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-three-women-following-ice-agent-home-work-and-livestreaming

2. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/santa-monica-man-arrested-federal-criminal-complaint-alleging-he-doxxed-and-harassed

3. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/11/anarchists-and-rioters-portland-illegally-dox-ice-officers-and-federal-law

[David Nieporent]

So, the second and third of those did not involve ICE agents being harassed at their homes. The first one, assuming that DHS isn't lying, does, but of course it wasn't doxing, which is why the hysteria about needing masks is so silly. They followed him home, which a mask doesn't prevent.

[Armchair]

Ah, moving the goalposts...

"In February 2025, Curcio created a Facebook post in which he identified the victim – an ICE attorney – as an ICE agent, posted her home address, and directed others to “swat” her at that address. Curio also posted the victim’s home address with instructions to swat the victim on another social media account controlled by Curcio. "

Sure, the individual was doxxed, then explicitly called upon to be swatted...by that doesn't count as harassment at their home. And even if they were swatted, that's not actual harrassment, that's something else.

Do you have no shame?

[David Nieporent]

Was he actually swatted, or did someone merely say that he should be? The latter, as far as I can tell.

[Armchair]

And in the third example, they deliberately trashed an ICE official's personal residence, after reports of doxxing. But you can't PROVE the doxxing deliberately led to the trashing of the personal residence. Just happenstance. Could've happened to anyone....

[Armchair]

But there's more...

"Direct threats to families: In Texas, an ICE officer’s spouse received a call saying, “I don’t know how you let your husband work for ICE, and you sleep at night. F*** you, f*** your family. I hope your kids get deported by accident. How do you sleep? F*** you. Did you hear what happened to the Nazis after World War II? Because it’s what’s going to happen to your family.” "

That doesn't count either according to David.

[shawn_dude]

No, not even then. That's what anti-harassment laws are for. If actions are considered harassment but don't meet the level of the applicable anti-harassment laws, then it's likely speech covered by the First Amendment.

[Armchair]

We've finally found a crime that Russia is engaging in to destabilize countries. Illegal immigration.

"Russian spies and hard-left humanitarian groups are working with people smugglers to flood Europe with illegal migrants, a Bulgarian minister says.

Daniel Mitov, the interior minister, said his government had evidence that Russia’s foreign intelligence service had direct links with the criminal gangs facilitating illegal immigration into the European Union.

He said Russian spies were helping people smugglers find weaknesses in the EU’s external borders, including Bulgaria’s border with Turkey, and were telling migrants how to exploit EU and UK asylum systems and avoid removal."

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/10/russia-behind-illegal-immigration.php

Ilya Somin is confused who to support now...

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only things the Russians have EVER been good at is espionage and subversian...

[Frank Drackman]

Au Contraire, they make pretty good Assault Rifles, or at least good enough to make over 100,000,000 since Kalishnikof invented the AK in 1947 (Admittedly copied from the German StG44) Pretty good Tanks, Fighters, Helicopters, (as my least favorite Marx Brother said, "Quantity has a Quality of it's own")
I'll take 5 Mig-29's vs a F35 every day of the week (and twice on Sunday)
They're also still the majority of the Worlds Chess Grandmasters, Great at Hockey, even pretty good at Soccer.
Classical Music?? I love me some Tchaikovsky, and "God Bless Amurica??" written by that Rooshun-Jew, Irving Berlin (he changed it from "Beilin" when he got here)
I'll admit, Barbecue they haven't really figured out yet, but give them time.

Frank

[Martinned]

Are you under the impression that prof. Somin thinks that people smuggling isn't a crime and/or shouldn't be a crime?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

[Michael P]

More specifically, Ilya the Lesser frequently argues that we should open the US's borders and not recognize anything as "people smuggling": he thinks the entire concept should be abolished, not just decriminalized.

[Martinned]

Yes. That's something else.

[Brett Bellmore]

Prof. Somin thinks that neither federal nor state governments have any constitutional authority to make crossing the border a crime, outside of very specific circumstances such as a declared war, or plague carriers during an epidemic. He doesn't just think open borders are a good policy, he claims they are constitutionally obligatory.

Does the Constitution Give the Federal Government Power Over Immigration?

He has argued that the 10th amendment doesn't even leave this as a reserved power of the states, since the 14th amendment.

So I think it would be fair to say that he'd argue that people smuggling can't be a crime.

[Jmaie]

People smuggling now described as travel agency?

[David Nieporent]

So I think it would be fair to say that he'd argue that people smuggling can't be a crime.

I do not speak for Prof. Somin, but I do not think he would object to a requirement that anyone coming to the U.S. present themselves at a border crossing and "check in" before entering. If so, there would still be a (limited) crime of "people smuggling."

[shawn_dude]

LOL... "finally."

[not guilty]

"We've finally found a crime that Russia is engaging in to destabilize countries. Illegal immigration."

Armchair, what crime(s) do you contend that Russia has thereby committed? What legal authority defines and prohibits such crime(s)?

(These are not rhetorical questions. I don't claim to know the answers.)

[Malika la Maize]

Checking in on the tough on crime President!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/21/politics/pardoned-capitol-rioter-arrested-hakeem-jeffries-threat

Pardoned Capitol rioter arrested on charge that he threatened to kill Hakeem Jeffries

A New York man who was convicted of charges related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack was arrested Sunday on a charge that he threatened to kill Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
According to New York State Police, an anonymous source told the FBI that the man, Christopher Moynihan, had said on Friday that “in a few days, he would kill Congressman Jeffries in New York City for ‘the future,’” court records say.

Moynihan was previously sentenced to nearly two years in prison for his participation in the Capitol attack after being convicted of obstructing an official proceeding, disorderly conduct in a restricted area, and other, similar charges.

President Donald Trump pardoned Moynihan— along with others convicted of January 6 offenses — earlier this year.

[Michael P]

Trump's FBI helps Democrat state arrest man who made a serious threat against a Democrat politician. In response, Internet man very upset that Trump's crystal ball was not working long before the threat was made.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, now do how local authorities who release immigrant are responsible for immigrant’s later crime even if they are the ones who apprehended him for the latter.

It must be tough for MAGAns having to wake up and bend the knee trying to defend the mad king.

[David Nieporent]

In response, Internet man very upset that Trump's crystal ball was not working long before the threat was made.

You think it took a crystal ball on January 20, 2025 to see the events of January 6, 2021?

[shawn_dude]

He commuted Santos because he "ALWAYS VOTE[d] REPUBLICAN!" (all caps in original.)

So the "tough on crime" President clearly has a different understanding of what a crime is than what's actually written in the laws. Being a Republican or wealthy, for example, appear to be legitimate defenses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tax the Whites: Mamdani pitches race-based property tax rates for New York City

Zohran Mamdani doubles down on plan to target ‘whiter neighborhoods’ with higher taxes — and says billionaires shouldn’t exist

As the prospect of actually ending up in power starts to look realistic, it appears that Mamdani is gradually easing in more components of his original communist agenda.

And, yeah, the literature promoting this is pretty specific about intending to go after "white neighborhoods", that's not inferred, it's explicit.

[hobie]

"Mr. Mamdani, 34, said the time has come to “shift the burden” from the city’s outer boroughs to “richer” and “Whiter” neighborhoods."

I agree. He should have stopped at 'richer'.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he'll erect a wall around Manhattan to keep the richer people from leaving.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — Getting rich absentee property owners to bail out would be a sensible strategy to bring down NYC real estate prices. Mamdani may even be putting it to work now. Whether confronting that kind of power directly is wise personal politics is another question. Voters inclined toward Mamdani's politics may decide it wiser to pick a champion with longer prospects for thriving in office.

[Frank Drackman]

Better be a friggin forcefield, if you haven't noticed, there is this invention called the "Airplane" and in this invention you can fly over walls.

[bernard11]

Yes. He should have.

But I absolutely hate articles and reports about these kinds of issues that don't bother telling the reader what the relevant numbers and rates actually are. Instead, they serve up predictable quotes from people on both sides of the issue.

The linked article provides no information to help assess whether the current rates are fair or not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Your own advocacy is saturated with race-specific advocacy, all pro-white. It is unsurprising that you do not like race-based counter-advocacy. But so long as you and your political allies target blacks, they and their advocates will defend themselves, and seek to strike back with politics. Pray that they do not choose more violent methods.

So long as you and your ilk continue with, "anti-racism is the real racism," with an eye to leverage pro-racist outcomes, just that long will you be ceding political initiative to those you attack. You will never reach a state of political repose, where black people meekly submit forever.

[hobie]

With Brett, I think it's more about the color of the candidate than the policies. White candidacies have long been forgotten, but - whether elected or not - Abrams, Mamdani, and Obama will live for decades in infamy inside Brett's cranium

[Frank Drackman]

Crucified on your own Racial-Petard (we Jews love Crucifying Race-ists on their own Petards)
Arabs are considered "White" by the US Government (and by themselves I might add, the word "Aryan" originated from "Iran")
Even A-rabs born in Uganda like (the) Zoran Mandamn-he

Frank

[not guilty]

Uh, the phrase, "hoist with his own petard" refers to explosives, not crosses.

And were Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gentiles? W. Shakespeare, Hamlet act 3, scene 4.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Your own advocacy is saturated with race-specific advocacy, all pro-white."

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence of this.

[Sarcastr0]

Moonie Times and the NY Post? Oh, they're still trying.
Brett is eager for some redbaiting, especially if it's about the most oppressed people in America - whites living in NYC.

Meanwhile, in the actual campaign:

https://x.com/ZohranKMamdani/status/1980388053035413940
"Overstaying its welcome. Making New Yorkers’ days grimmer. Something we should relegate to the past.
No, we're not talking about Andrew Cuomo. We're talking about scaffolding.
Today we released our plan to take it down more quickly."

What a radical!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — Sometimes you have to think stuff through that would never give you a clue. I can't count how many times I have suffered obstruction and annoyance from giant construction scaffolding seemingly in place for years. Now, voila! If I owned that much scaffolding material where would I store it, and how much would that cost me? Answer? Zero, if I store it right on the public street, until I find another customer to rent it to.

[Bwaaah]

NYC already enforces strict regulations on when scaffolding is required and how long it's allowed to be in place.

The only offender left is the city itself that lets its government projects keep their scaffolding up indefinitely. That works well with its forever slow-moving, over-cost, under-delivering construction projects. See NYCHA projects as the worst offenders of forever scaffolding.

Now say something stupid, Stupid.

[Krayt]

I was about to make a similar comment. Indefinite scaffolding means indefinite payouts, to union workers and adjacent "business".

Cost of doing business? That is the business.

[John F. Carr]

His tax plan would be facially color-blind and discriminate based on wealth. Like California tax rates discriminate based on how long you have owned your house.

As an example, pay 2% on the first million dollars of valuation and 6% above that. The policy hits rich neighborhoods. But if a black family goes movin' on up to the East Side, the black family is taxed the same as a neighboring white family.

[Sarcastr0]

Progressive tax rates are not discrimination!

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course they are.

[Krayt]

His tax plan would be facially color-blind and discriminate based on wealth

Except he opened his mouth, and the SC is very good discerning unconstitutional motives behind laws.

[shawn_dude]

And has a recent history of not caring about those motives provided the person motivated by them is advancing white Christian Nationalism.

[Krayt]

Or we shall see about anti-white original sin arguments.

[shawn_dude]

48 out of 50 states have some sort of homestead exemption that is effectively "discriminat[ing] based on how long you have owned your house."

Florida, for example, caps your annual property tax increases for your homesteaded house. This is essentially what Prop-13 does. Definitely not a libertarian law, but making the elderly homeless has never been popular with voters.

[Poxigah146]

https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/1980786194087584220

Imagine that. You fill America with third-world garbage, and you get third-world politicians.

[David Nieporent]

Look up to see a racist commenter not smart enough to detect a spurious correlation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Is there a theory of liability and damages in which Trump could actually see a judgment of any amount let alone $230 million? I’m trying to figure out what kind of claim wouldn’t be barred by immunity and I’m coming up empty.

[Martinned]

He'll just waive immunity. L'état, c'est lui.

[John F. Carr]

A longer term solution, once Democrats are back, is to require judicial approval of settlements over a certain value.

In my state certain payments to minors can not be assigned without judicial approval. The scenario is, minor wins $10,000 per year for 20 years. Investor comes in and offers $20,000 for the income stream. Minor would rather have an extra $10,000 this year because next year is infinitely far away. Judge slaps the investor.

[Martinned]

That's what the Tunney Act does in merger control. It's still not very useful unless there are people willing and able to argue both sides. If Trump takes a bribe and rolls over on, say, the HPE/Juniper deal, can the state attorneys general really push back hard enough to make a difference?

[Zarniwoop]

Also a good idea: bar the president from participating in any civil action that provides him with any benefit (self, companies, relatives) while he’s in office.

The power to extort is real (see, e.g., “settlements” for frivolous cases Trump brought).

Giving him an extension on statute of limitations would be fair. President is a big job, he should focus on that and not monetizing his power via lawsuits.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A longer term solution, once Democrats are back, is to require judicial approval of settlements over a certain value."

Why not Congress? We are talking about spending public money.

Congress used to pass bills for settlements and paying judgments. Like many things, it was too much work so they established an automatic system. .

[John F. Carr]

That's another solution. The Department of Justice can settle claims up to a limit of $1 million. Larger claims will be referred to Congress with a recommendation by the Department.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay I was thinking about this and it might present problems for the DOJ lawyers. Trump (personally) sues DOJ. Typically DOJ lawyers, in pursuit of representing the United States, would assert various (good) immunity defenses. Trump (officially as President) directs DOJ to waive all immunity defenses if Trump sues.

Does this present a non-waivable conflict for the DOJ lawyers? Keep in mind their obligations under the rules of professional conduct are to the bars in which they are admitted. Would state bars consider this a rules violation?

[Martinned]

Have Trump lawyers ever given you the impression that they care about professional ethics? And who would be around to seek sanctions against them?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Have Trump lawyers ever given you the impression that they care about professional ethics?"

"And who would be around to seek sanctions against them?"

State Disciplinary Counsel. Todd Blanche is licensed in New York, for instance. They can do an independent investigation of him.

[Armchair]

Just throwing this out there...legal fees. If the DoJ had been targeting Trump for illegitimate reasons, and Trump needed to defend himself...wouldn't recompense for legal fees Trump needed to pay be at least a reasonable assessment for damages?

[hobie]

That might fly if Trump ever paid his own lawyers. And if he did, did he ever pay them this much?

Also, don't I recall that campaign donations paid for all his legal fees?

[Michael P]

"The money came from somewhere" does not alter the fact that he had to spend that money to protect himself from government abuses.

[Sarcastr0]

"The money came from somewhere" does not alter the fact that he had to spend that money

Amazing.

[hobie]

He's in rare form today.

[hobie]

Well, if he got all his legal work for free, then he can't prove damages

[bernard11]

WTF, Michael P.?

[Armchair]

"And if he did, did he ever pay them this much?"

Trump's legal fees have been...substantial. North of $100 million according to some reports. And while PAC funds were still used, that means they weren't available for campaign spending...a point which Democrats may have been in favor of. Perhaps the funding recovered might need to go back to the PACs.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trumps-use-campaign-funds-pay-legal-bills

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do criminal defendants whose cases are dismissed or are acquitted ever get reimbursed for their legal fees by the government?

[Armchair]

They can, yes. On the federal level, it's the Hyde amendment (not the abortion one). "A 1997 federal statute that allows courts to award attorneys' fees and expenses to a criminal defendant if the prosecution was "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith""

Here's a review on the concept at the federal and state level.

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/facsch_lawrev/article/2033/&path_info=The_Price_is_Wrong.pdf

[Martinned]

For the record, the bar for this should be much lower. The government should feel some pain if a criminal defendant is acquitted. (Particularly if they were held in pre-trial detention.)

[Armchair]

Perhaps you should lobby your own government.

Although I would put out there, compensation for mere acquittal, with no wrongdoing by the government may lead to some unexpected consequences. If the state brings charges against a "bad guy", but doesn't quite hit the reasonable doubt level...the jury may choose to say not guilty.

On the other hand, if it's the same situation, but there's been pretrial detention, and it becomes known the state will be on the hook for $100,000 (or whatever), and that money is coming from the taxpayers (who are also the jury), and as a result the school district is going to cut programs...Well the jury may consider the "bad guy" versus their children's future, and decide for their children instead.

[Martinned]

In my country there is an automatic damages award with a fixed daily rate for people who were held in pre-trial detention and were then acquitted. That seems right to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say the bar for this should be somewhere in the basement; Criminal defendants should be made entirely whole after an acquittal.

A basic principle of the Constitution is that the government should act for the general, not specific, welfare, and that the cost of the general welfare should be born by the general population, not specific fall guys, no matter how convenient the latter would be.

The costs imposed on criminal defendants if they are convicted can reasonably be considered part of their penalty for the crime, but the acquitted can not rightfully be subjected to any penalty, so those costs become part of the general cost of having a legal system, and should be assumed by the general public.

[Bob from Ohio]

"government should feel some pain"

Its the taxpayers who would feel the pain.

[Martinned]

Indeed. So let them elect officials who don't prosecute unless there's a sufficiently high probability of conviction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahaha
Javerts abound.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents?

[LawTalkingGuy]

LOL. Good one.

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Costumes: they hide identity. An increasingly wise tactic for a would-be anti-Trump/MAGA demonstrator. But hiding identity, whether with costumes or pseudonyms, makes protest less personally consequential, and hence less publicly pertinent.

Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense first published anonymously, but quickly found it advantageous to reveal his identity. The Declaration of Independence would probably have sunk into obscurity if not for the signatures.

[hobie]

I wonder if we're allowed to dress as ICE agents?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hobie — You may be onto something. How about inflatable ICE Agent costumes? Is there some way I can get into marketing them? I foresee entire political pageants, spread across the stage of the public square, with all the players inflatably costumed.

[gVOR08]

I see a problem. How do you tell an inflated ICE agent costume from a real ICE agent.

[hobie]

Naw. You just dress like an Oath Keeper in all that camo and tactical and - BOOM - you pretty much look like an ICE agent

[windycityattorney]

I think ICE barbie, Atty Gen Barbie etc... would be winners for Halloween for the young adult female crowd. It will only last a yr or two but ya gotta strike while the iron's hot.

[shawn_dude]

Most of the protesters aren't in costume and the costumes directly undercut the administrations "cities are literally burning" propaganda. It's hard to justify the Insurrection Act if your insurrectionists are storming the castle in inflatable frog costumes that they can barely move in.

I was noting how ICE using mace on protesters doesn't impact someone in a frog costume as it hits the plastic face covering and never reaches the victim. But, one good tear gas grenade and the inflating fan would suck the gas up into the costume and make it hard to avoid.

I wonder how long before we see frog costumes with air filters over the intake fan?

[Martinned]

TIL that occasionally the British parliament does have a sense of humour. When they wrote the Intelligence Services Act in 1994, about the organisation more commonly referred to as MI6, they put the license to kill in s. 7.

If, apart from this section, a person would be liable in the United Kingdom for any act done outside the British Islands, he shall not be so liable if the act is one which is authorised to be done by virtue of an authorisation given by the Secretary of State under this section.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/7

[Magister]

Putting it in section 00 would have been too blatant; licenses to kill and missions impossible require plausible deniability.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think this more covers computer viri and hacking.

[Estragon]

“viri”

Pardon?

[John F. Carr]

Dr. Ed 2 is prone to using Latin-inspired plural forms that are not in common use. According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Latin the Latin word does not inflect in the usual way for nouns ending in -us. Classically it had no plural. In modern Latin it can have a plural in -a because it is of neuter gender rather than masculine.

[Martinned]

It covers that too. It covers literally anything that could be a crime or a tort.

[Ska]

Anyone here ever watch The Sandbaggers? Great British spy show about MI6/SIS from the late '70s. Likely very slow to a modern audience - a spy show more about diplomacy and intelligence than shootouts (though there is some of that, too).

Also has its own real life conspiracy theory about the show's writer being a spy and mysteriously disappearing during a flight over the Gulf of Alaska.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes. It was great.

[hobie]

Am I seeing this correctly? Is the ballroom going to be both taller than, and twice the size of, the White House itself?

[Martinned]

I gather different AI-generated images are in circulation, some of which are definitely not accurate.

Then again, maybe the Regime is following Ed's proposal and using the new ballroom as a bullet shield to protect Trump from the electorate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — I would like to see some of those, "inaccurate," images. The first renderings published came from Trump's team. Close inspection showed them minimizing rather than exaggerating the physical size of the project. But combined with the square footage mentioned, they did plainly imply a building both taller than the White House, and with a larger footprint. I ran the square footage by an old friend who is retired from the commercial roofing business—he put a new roof on DC's Union Station. His instant reply when I asked, "That is a very large commercial warehouse."

[hobie]

If true, this seems more like a victory mosque paean middle finger meant to dominate the complex.

How many elites is he trying to pack it with? And what dignitaries from any country know how to ballroom dance? The crypto sheiks?

The only time I've ever seen Trump dance was last year when he closed his eyes at a podium and swayed silently for, like, ten minutes.

[ThePublius]

So, you think ballroom means, literally, a place for ballroom dancing only?

[Krayt]

It's to cover up an even more monstrous underground meth lab, and emergency escape rocket.

Hehe, added "1997, 30 years later..."

In two years, it'll be "1997, 30 years later, 30 years ago..."

[Krayt]

Actually, they should add:

"1997, 30 years later, 30 years ago. Hi, people in 2057! What did you do with this line?"

I hereby release it for free use by Austin Powers
.

[Krayt]

Come 2057:

1997
30 Years Later
30 Years Ago
Hi, people in 2057! What did you do with this line?
Nothing, you pathetic tools. To our advanced space comedy, your "comedy" is like witch doctors arguing about what kind of leeches to use in bloodletting. You think you're better than us? Who the hell do you think you are! What about that is funny? What is so fuckin' funny!?!!??

[Estragon]

"It'll be near it but not touching it," Trump said. "Nothing will be torn down," Leavitt added.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, today's fun baloney meme deconstruction project. First, here's the context of Trump's soundbite:

He said the new ballroom would not interfere with the mansion itself.

"It'll be near it but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of," he said of the White House. "It's my favorite. It's my favorite place. I love it."

So "it" is the main White House mansion, not the entire complex. Strike 1.

Leavitt's is even worse. I went looking for the context around her supposed soundbite, and was immediately struck by the fact that there was absolutely zero video footage going around of her saying it. That seemed a bit... oh, I don't know, WEIRD for something that the Press Secretary supposedly said, so I went looking for the video of the July 31 press conference where she first announced the plan. Here's the relevant bits from the transcript that appear to show where this one came from:

[Leavitt]: I have provided some photos for all of you in the room today. This is the interior of the ballroom space. It's quite beautiful. And then this is the exterior of the ballroom space. As you can see, it will come off of the executive mansion as it sits today, and the East Wing will be modernized and renovated.

Jennifer (16:24):
But nothing will be torn down?

Karoline Leavitt (16:24):
We're happy to answer any further questions on that. Jennifer, since you're so eager, I will go to you. But first . . .
* * *
Karoline Leavitt (18:46):
Thanks for being here. Jennifer, go ahead. Eager beaver today.

Jennifer (18:48):
How much of the East Wing will be torn down? The entire East Wing or just parts of it?

Karoline Leavitt (18:52):
So the East Wing is going to be modernized. The necessary construction will take place and for those who are housed in the East Wing, including the Office of the First Lady, the White House Military Office, the White House Visitors Offices, those offices will be temporarily relocated while the East Wing is being modernized.

So the words "nothing will be torn down" were in the form of a question from a reporter -- which when it was actually her turn she rephrased as "how much of the East Wing will be torn down"?

If you have other primary sources that show Leavitt contradicting what she said here and actually saying "nothing will be torn down," please do share them. But given the above, the whole thing looks like a bad game of Telephone -- for a solid strike 2.

[Estragon]

Curious

[Magister]

The quote was in at least one news story from August. We know from Life of Brian (with regard to how people murdered in boats near Venezuela must have been criminals because otherwise their sainthood would have been all over the news) that it must have been true, or we'd have heard endless contradictions of the statement. The Trump administration probably didn't want to get into whether "modernized" was a deceptive euphemism or have to give an explicit answer about demolition.

[Life of Brian]

The quote was in at least one news story from August.

Heck, the first link in my post claims she said the words, but does so in the context of the press conference in my second link so it's pretty apparent they either misread or misrepresented the exchange as quoted above.

As I said: if you have an actual primary source showing she actually said the words, bring it on. OP appears not to.

[Magister]

The White House was unaware this was reported? Unlikely.
The White House was aware but chose to leave it alone rather than get pinned down on the demolition that is currently taking place? Likely, even without considering qui tacet, consentire videtur.

Come on back when the AP issues a correction (or is asked to correct this and refuses). Or when you concede your hypocrisy between this and the Venezuelan boat sinkings.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, even Estragon agreed below she doesn't appear to have said what was reported. But we can always count on you to go down with the ship!

[Magister]

It's not a question of whether that quote is accurate; the point is that it was not disputed, and consequently there is a huge outcry over demolishing the entire East Wing. But Life of Brian scored a quibbling point on one quote, while failing to address Trump's false claim. Better luck next time, Life of Brian.

[Mr. Bumble]

Change your screen name to The Stickler.

[Life of Brian]

the point is that it was not disputed

The media shamelessly lies on a daily basis about the administration. "Ha ha, you didn't push back on THIS one" is not a serious argument.

while failing to address Trump's false claim

But you see, mon chérie, that's the whole enchilada: without either of the two incorrectly attributed statements, there is no false claim.

[Magister]

OK, resorting to deep swamp nonsense and failing French. You insisted those boats were full of criminals because of what the media did not report, but when they make a reasonable interpretation of what was said but incorrectly make it a quote, nothing can be inferred.

It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be. It'll be near it but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of.

The current work doesn't pay respect to the existing building.

[Bwaaah]

Magister: "The current work doesn't pay respect to the existing building."

Your abiding concern for respectful treatment of the White House, as a building, is noted.

[Life of Brian]

"Curious" that your Trusted Media™ sources spoon-fed you yet another shameless whopper? I might pick a different word.

[Estragon]

The alleged comment was widely reported at the time, including by AP. From what I can tell you are correct— those words were not spoken by Ms Leavitt on 7/31. I am always interested in reasons to be skeptical, and to know when I am wrong.

[Life of Brian]

Same here. Appreciate the candor.

[M L]

Thanks for the background.

Obviously this is just upsetting to TDS sufferers, because Trump. If Obama was doing the same thing they would give him the Nobel Prize in architecture or something.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 90K square feet refers to the total floor space of the East wing after the renovation. Only 25K square feet will be the ballroom itself. The rest is existing and expanded function space.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, the renderings appear to show at least two stories, so that cuts the 90k at least in half right there. 25k for the ballroom wouldn't surprise me -- for a maximum occupancy of 1,000 that's still really spacious.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's spacious, but there are commercial venues in that size range, so it's not crazy. For an occupancy of 1,000 people that's only 25 square feet per person. Wedding venues are in the range of 10-15 square feet per person, but that's not including the dance floor.

I'd say it's spacious, but not crazy, for the capacity. And, frankly, Trump is a builder, he's right in his element in this case.

[bernard11]

So the East Wing is going to be modernized.

You mean, like new paint and carpeting, better lighting, an upgraded HVAC system? Like that?

Leavitt simply dodged the question, which is what you do when you don't want to answer. Stop defending this shit.

[Moderation4ever]

Question: How soon after Trump leaves office is there a move to restore the White House and demolish the ballroom. I am guessing less than 10 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

That depends on who takes office after he leaves; If Democrats take the White house in 2028, I fully expect them to do something of the sort, or at least propose it, as part of a general program of erasing the Trump administration from US history.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither public opinion of Trump nor aesthetics enter into Brett's analysis.

He sees the world in purely partisan terms, so he presumes everyone else must as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't enter into my analysis, because I don't think they'd enter into Democratic decision making. If Trump does it, you're driven to undo it.

[Sarcastr0]

Did it occur to you that there might be other players than the eeeeevil Democratic Party?

Voters matter to just about every non-MAGA political party. So do institutions. And policies.

You gotta get your head out of your partisan politics ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there are other players. I don't expect any players besides the Republican and Democratic parties to be in a position to determine if the new East wing gets torn down and restored to its pre-Trump design.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't think voters matter. Or processes. Or instituions.

Only power.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, I heard general disgust about what is happening to the White House. Both paving the Rose Garden and the destruction of the east wing. I think you will see a move to restore the White House. I would also not be surprised to see the call for restoration of the White House come from the former First Ladies and their staffs. In my life time the upkeep of the White House has always gone through and in some cases championed by the First Ladies. I don't think they will look kindly on Trump trying to turn it into his man-cave.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just what time in its history should it be restored to?

[Brett Bellmore]

First, the East wing is NOT being "destroyed", it is being "renovated" and "expanded". It's true that this sort of renovation involves a great deal of initial destruction, but there's still going to be an East wing after they're done, it's just going to be bigger, and most of it isn't going to be ballroom.

Second, I'm with you on the Rose garden, I'm much more fond of plants than brick.

[Mr. Bumble]

They only replaced the lawn. It's a patio surrounded by flowers.
"In 2025, Donald Trump ordered that the grass of the garden be replaced with a patio.[15] Stone tiles were laid in a diamond pattern in July of that year.[16][17]

The patio stone was sourced from Indiana limestone quarries, the same region that supplied stone for the National Cathedral and the Empire State Building.[18] Solar-powered in-ground lighting was also added along the new patio, which some praised as eco-conscious but others criticized as disrupting the historical atmosphere.[19] "
Wiki

[shawn_dude]

Pretending it didn't happen is how we got into this mess in the first place. If we'd prevented the Confederates from rehabilitating their war to preserve slavery in the history books, we might not be fighting fascism in our own government today. So no, we don't hide what Trump and the rest of the Republicans did to get us here. If we're still a multi-party democracy by 2028, we prosecute, don't commute or pardon, and treat it much the same way post-WW2 Germany did their own departure from reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

If we'd properly gone after the communists after WWII, the way we did the Nazis, instead of going easy on them because Stalin had been our ally, we might not have a major political party thinking that everybody to the right of it is a fascist.

[Sarcastr0]

If only we McCarthy'd harder!

The worst libertarian goes hard to the paint for thoughtcrime.

[bernard11]

I fully expect them to do something of the sort, or at least propose it, as part of a general program of erasing the Trump administration from US history.

The usual. It will be for an evil purpose. Tell us, why don't you say that Trump is simply doing this as a monument to himself? Because such a noble fellow would never do such a thing?

[ducksalad]

Meh, it's one of those things that shouldn't have been done, but once it's there you might as well make use of it.

Suggested new names:
- George Floyd Memorial Ballroom
- Rainbow Hall

Suggested activities for the new venue:
- Truth and Reconciliation hearings
- Mass naturalization ceremonies

[David Nieporent]

Assuming it's finished (or mostly so) I don't think they'd demolish it; that would be expensive and wasteful. Stripping out all the utterly tasteless gold décor, on the other hand…

[shawn_dude]

Is it just me or does all that gold crap remind you of Putin's palace? It's like he's trying to emulate the Russian dictator.

[Martinned]

They both have the same aesthetic, I don't think either one got it from the other.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's just you.

[Martinned]

Oops... It turns out that no amount of kissing Trump's ass will protect you from MAGA racism and other bigotry.

https://www.wonkette.com/p/maga-outraged-at-demon-worshiper

On Monday, Patel — who is Hindu — tweeted “Happy Diwali - celebrating the Festival of Lights around the world, as good triumphs over evil,” along with an illustrated “Happy Diwali” card depicting the Ganges river filled with lit candles.
(...)
Patel received nearly 3,000 responses, the vast majority of which informed him that it was illegal to be Hindu in the United States, that he should go back to India, and/or that he was a devil worshiper.
(...)
Fellow Trump acolyte Vivek Ramaswamy [also posted a Diwali message on Tiwtter]. He got about 3,300 responses, most of which were also pretty horrifying.

[Riva]

Please stop with the projection. Don’t you have other things to do on your job besides democrat trolling?

[hobie]

Heh. I'll add this:

"The Alamo [a Texas shrine, Martin] Trust Board is apologizing after an official Alamo account post commemorating "Indigenous Peoples' Day" went viral and caught the ire of at least one state official."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/alamo-trust-apologizing-indigenous-peoples-182511907.html

Re America's darkies: You can't erase them if you keep mentioning them

[loki13]

Really, if you think about it ... RFK jr might have a MAGA point about vaccines.

Those pesky vaccines would have prevented smallpox from helping make America great ... at the expense of indigenous peoples.

Jus' sayin'.

[Estragon]

“No moulignon holidays … From kwanza [sic] to mlk jr day to black history month to Juneteenth […] Every single one needs to be eviscerated.”

So apparently there are actually red lines for Rick Scott and Ron Johnson. But this little episode once again proves the usefulness of this comment section in that it has predictive value as to where ultra-MAGA is heading. I am of course reminded of the howling around here regarding Juneteenth! Maybe Mr Ingrassia wasn’t so far out of the mainstream after all?

[Bored Lawyer]

Saw this yesterday:

Everything You Say to ChatGPT Can—and Will—Be Used Against You

In Missouri, a college student vandalized 17 cars. What got him charged wasn’t a witness or camera—it was his own “confession” to ChatGPT:
“How f**ked am I, bro? What if I smashed the cars?”
Days later, a California man was charged with arson after using an AI app to generate images of a burning city. Both cases mention ChatGPT by name in the affidavits.
We’ve officially entered a new era: AI as evidence.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7385994338989707264/

Astounding that people confess to their ChatGPT. But then again, never underestimate the stupidity of people.

Can see legal issues being raised. I would think there is a colorable Fourth Amendment claim to privacy, assuming that those conversations are kept confidential by the AI platform.

Someone might try to claim some kind of therapist privilege, which sound outlandish to me, but who knows.

In any case, seems like this will be a new issue.

[hobie]

Patient/Client privilege, baby!

[LawTalkingGuy]

"I would think there is a colorable Fourth Amendment claim to privacy, assuming that those conversations are kept confidential by the AI platform."

No. This is squarely covered by the third-party doctrine. There is no recognized Fourth Amendment privacy interest in information voluntarily transmitted to a third-party like ChatGTP.

[Bored Lawyer]

But is ChatGPT a "third party?" Seems more like a gmail account, which, IIRC, does require a warrant.
Might depend on the Terms of Service of ChatGPT, or whatever AI is involved.
In any event, I expect the argument will be raised, even if it does not succeed.

[loki13]

I appreciate the query-

"How f**ked am I, bro?"

Really, that's what most clients want to know!

[M L]

Not that different from people's google search history.

"how to get rid of a body" etc.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone knows that you have to say "#Asking for a friend," and then you're safe.

[John F. Carr]

"Should I publish the Trump pedo pages from the Epstein files?"

If your house gets raided you know they are monitoring ChatGPT in real time.

[John F. Carr]

An opinion piece in The Guardian proposes that states intercept federal tax payments and hold them in trust for the federal government. Starved of revenue, Trump will capitulate.

As I see it, if the federal government does not actually receive tax payments the taxpayers are liable for underpayment. It's like your employer not sending paycheck withholding to the IRS. The government can come after you for your employer's failure. The government can go after both the taxpayer and employer for the same deficiency.

Penalties can be assessed without proving criminal intent.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/19/blue-states-fight-back-against-trump

[Stephen Lathrop]

Carr — It's a high-stakes confrontation. If it succeeds, all the threatened penalties go away in a general amnesty. If it fails, a lot of the penalties will turn out uncollectable anyway. If the whole thing ever got rolling across all the states the Guardian article mentioned, I would not bet against federal capitulation. Trump doesn't have much ceiling left on tariffs to steal from.

By the way, a few months ago I suggested Trump was delighted by tariffs because it put him in the position of the guy highest on the irrigation ditch. He might not have the water right, but required ditch maintenance can't be perfect.

Right wingers scoffed at that. How is Trump funding the shutdown, without congressional appropriations?

[ThePublius]

"How is Trump funding the shutdown, without congressional appropriations?"

Trump is funding the shutdown? What does that mean?

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently someone spiked Stephen's oatmeal with LSD this morning.

[David Nieporent]

Come on; Lathrop says plenty of dumb things, but this was easily understandable inartful phrasing: "How is Trump funding [the government during] the shutdown"

[pdshaw]

Yes, this is a bad legal perspective from "a political anthropologist, social psychiatrist, and psychoanalytic clinician." Akin to advise that you don't have tax liability if you don't sign your return.

To be clear though, his scheme involves two steps: states pass laws and funding to administer the trust, and then employers choose to take money they have withheld from employees to pay taxes to the federal government and send it to the state. As a practical matter, it's only going to happen in the most liberal states (moderate Democrats will stand up for worker rights) by the most liberal employers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most liberal employers"

With the dumbest lawyers.

Plenty of business owners have gone to prison for failure to send withholdings to the treasury. I don't think an ok by a state law would protect them.

[Krayt]

An opinion piece in The Guardian proposes that states intercept federal tax payments and hold them in trust for the federal government. Starved of revenue, Trump will capitulate.

I wondered about something like this several times in the past. The feds taking vast amounts, then returning it with song and dance strings attached, was growing power outside all reason.

To get your answer, propose this thing 5 or 15 or 30 years ago, and let those in support of it now provide the reply as to how stupid, awful, and undemocratic it is.

[Armchair]

Hello Nullification Crisis.

[David Nieporent]

An opinion piece in The Guardian proposes that states intercept federal tax payments and hold them in trust for the federal government. Starved of revenue, Trump will capitulate.

"Eric Reinhart [the author] is a political anthropologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst"

Notably: not a lawyer.

[John F. Carr]

Reuters discusses Turkish leader Erdogan's rising influence: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/erdogan-turns-trumps-gaza-deal-into-power-play-turkey-2025-10-21/

Between Arabs and Israel. Between Russia and Ukraine. I keep thinking of the song "Stuck in the Middle with You".

[Don Nico]

He think he is the Sultan Suleiman the Great.

[SRG2]

Obviously the cultists here approved of Trump's latest pardons - poor misunderstood George Santos! But does their approval only go so far?

If Trump pardon, or commute the sentence of, Ghislaine Maxwell, would you lot defend it or condemn it?

[loki13]

...based on everything we've seen so far, of course they'd defend it.

They would come up with REASONS to defend it, or switch the conversation to something else.

Here, I'll help. BUT MARC RICH! See? If they can think of, or even imagine, any possible bad thing that any Democrat ever did, then Trump is permitted to do anything.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

(And the "get out of jail free" card is always changing the conversation to either "Democrats are baby killers" and/or "Democrats are the real racists because Byrd" (which is unintentional comedy of the highest level, but they don't get it and never will)).

[ThePublius]

Santos wasn't pardoned, his sentence was commuted. And I agree that 7 years was way too much for what he did.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Maybe so. Less than three months is still too little.

The commutation grant, to be clear, involved the "immediate commutation of his entire sentence to time served with no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5564409-george-santos-trump-clemency-fines-restitution/

[ThePublius]

What do you mean "maybe?"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sorry for using those fifty-cent vocab words.

[Sarcastr0]

You cool with his restitution requirements getting cancelled?

[SRG2]

And, interestingly, you respond on this thread twice, but in neither post do you address my question.

[David Nieporent]

And I agree that 7 years was way too much for what he did.

Stealing money from ordinary people? I forget: were you one of the ones pretending to be outraged that the guy who never did anything violent towards Kavanaugh got 8 years in prison for turning himself in?

[jay.tee]

Ah yes, because a thwarted assassination attempt is functionally and legally equivalent to (non-violent) theft.

Wow.

[Mr. Bumble]

But, but he gave himself up.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. After abandoning his attempt. So there was no actual victim. Whereas Santos had lots.

[Moderation4ever]

It is worth noting that George Santos has promised to leave New York if Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor and so he boosts Mamdani polling.

[ReaderY]

How much did ghe Mamdani campaign have to pay him for that endorsement? If I were George Santos I would have held out for a hefty fee for that one.

[Estragon]

Yes and yes. They already trial-ballooned this on Newsmax over the summer.

[Commenter_XY]

Unequivocally condemn it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I would equivocate. IIRC she was supposed to have immunity. If the commutation was related to that I might support it.

[loki13]

I'm waiting for the next hotness-

Since we've been told that the costumed No Kings protesters are all "the hardest core" "Antifas" bent on the insurrection-y overthrow of the Trumpis... US Government, then ...

BREAKING NEWS: Halloween Parties ... a Soros-funded Antifa Plot, or just anti-Christian bigotry?

[LawTalkingGuy]

One way you can tell that no one actually believes the Soros paid protestor thing...is that no one has even bothered pretending to be a paid protestor that is "exposed" by Project Veritas or something.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course if someone did you say it was a lie.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Probably. But that's because such a stunt would be immediately debunked. That's why no one is even bothering to pretend here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Red Queen logic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not really. Republicans have been claiming this for years, and have produced zero examples of a paid protestor. Why? Because it’s a lie. And the people pushing it know it’s a lie. So they don’t put out or promote any manufactured cases because they know it won’t be true and will be easily debunked. They just say it’s happening and move on. And these are people who have no problem lying about things. Think about how untrue this lie would have to be if the people who shamelessly lie about crowd size footage, election results or conduct, and that a health care plan will be presented in 2 weeks can’t even pretend paid protestors is real. That’s how bad of a lie this is.

[Michael P]

Denialists claim "zero examples of a paid protestor", while actual journalists have interviewed the CEO of a company that provides them.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/crowds-demand-ceo-provides-insight-paid-protester-requests-up-400-under-trump

JFC, you lot are pathetic.

[DDHarriman]

Have you not seen when people share the ads they've found in places like Craigslist before? Or the videos of the protestors coming and leaving on busses? Not necessarily at No Kings, but these are telltale signs of a Lefty protest.

Fake and gay.

[DDHarriman]

Did you ever look into why they were wearing the costumes? It wasn't for decoration, it was for utility. Nefarious utility.

[Krayt]

Joe Bob Briggs, horror host on Shudder, has a whole explanation of how Halloween came to be. Seems originally it, and Easter, were antipodes on a larger system with 8 equally spaced nodes around the year. Christianity later glommed onto it to dissuade paganism by introducing things like All Saints Day, the hallowed day halloween e'ens from.

Anyway, it's that time of year to point out Halloween isn't some cultural fun, but a literal religious holiday, where you carve and light up pumpkins to drive away evil spirits (those nodes being weak points in time where the barriers between worlds weaken, temporal hellmouths, as it were) and as such, government has no authority to cancel or move Halloween

The evil ghosts and goblins won't wait, and obey laws of no man. We must protect ourselves!

[Michael P]

Boring. People committed to the bit would instead rant that Code of Virginia § 18.2-422 is an unconstitutional restraint on expressive conduct, and therefore black bloc shouldn't be a feeling in Virginia. The exception for "wearing traditional holiday costumes" is clearly a government endorsement of crypto-pagan and/or Christian religion (choose one based on the speaker's political affiliation).

[loki13]

Reminder- as the holiday season approaches, the only Christian thing to do in December is to angrily and aggressively wish people a Merry Christmas, and to curse at people who do not give you the exact holiday greeting that you demand!

It's what Jesus would want.

[ThePublius]

Are you on drugs?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No. Just Christmas cookies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mmmmm, Christmas cookies!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And all those who give birth on December 25 should do so in barns.

(The Christmas instructions are appropriately timed. Not only are Christmas movies already on the Hallmark Channels, but I have started to see Christmas items in discount stores.)

[John F. Carr]

"Happy homeless peasant day!"

[shawn_dude]

Jesus wasn't born in December. Based on the details in the Bible, it'd be Fall or Spring.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a spread.

[Martinned]

Par for the course for a book that says that pi is three and that the sun revolves around the earth.

[not guilty]

How would history have turned out differently if the Make Egypt Great Again crowd had seized Mary, Joseph and their infant and sent them back to King Herod?

[ThePublius]

They weren't ilegal immigrants. They were returning for the census ordered by Caesar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why would a Roman client state defy the census order?

[Moderation4ever]

I use "Happy Holidays" until the week of Christmas and then switch to "Merry Christmas". I think it dilute the Christmas Holiday when you mention it two or three weeks before.

[loki13]

Yeah, I personally use Happy Holidays until pretty close to Xmas, and then switch to Merry Christmas primarily (although I sometimes will use Happy Holidays depending on the context).

And I love the good cheer! But ... boy, there are some angry people that go around with a chip on their shoulder and weaponize what should be a happy and festive greeting. You can always tell, too.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of posters here seem to be really hurt by how they might be called rude now for stuff no one previously objected to.

I absolutely had a long time in my life I took being courtesy as an entitlement that came from meaning well.
I have since learned that it was more that I was blind to a ton of stuff when I thought I was reading the room.

To be fair, I kind of enjoy the creative problem solving/social engineering involved in addition to not being seen as a dick.

To be fair, there are some outliers who obsess over every single way people could take offense, and others who take joy in finding offense in stupid shit (ref: https://bsky.app/profile/thelouvreof.bsky.social for some true cringe on this front)

Ain't nothing in human-human relations that's easy and non-exploitable, but living with humans means you gotta try.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Loki and Sarcastro sound very virtuous.

[hobie]

Every year Fox trots out the old War on Christmas song and dance. And every year the rubes fall for it.

[bernard11]

The whole Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas fight is complete bullshit. Why it's an issue to anyone but a culture warrior mystifies me.

Just greet people how you like, and appreciate others' well-wishes no matter how worded.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are these people in the room with you right now?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's a bit hard to watch Michael J. Fox in his Stephen Colbert interview, but it's also good to see him. Happy (belated) Back to the Future Day (October 21) to all those who celebrate.

I'm also happy he is still with Tracy Pollan, who fans of Family Ties might remember as Alex Keaton's girlfriend. The goodbye scene in the train station is very touching.

[David Nieporent]

Alex Keaton's girlfriend

Alex P. Keaton's first girlfriend. Then Courteney Cox.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't recall if she was his first girlfriend, but yes, she left town and then Courtney Cox (pre-Friends) came on the show.

[Estragon]

“There are many ways of looking at ICE’s recent terror campaign, but probably the most salient is a bunch of people who can’t get real jobs harassing and kidnapping people with real jobs.”

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-scum-manifesto

Ouch. Rings pretty true from the videos I’ve seen. Steven Miller’s fascist spectacle isn’t providing the sexual thrills needed to satisfy. As Marcy says, it’s a lot of beer bellies and butt cracks. ICE not sending their best! Many of these bad hombres bear a striking resemblance to Stewie Rhodes’ (commuted, not pardoned) meal team 6 band of cosplaying weirdos.

[ReaderY]

Who would want to work for ICE in its current state if they could get a real job?

[Mr. Bumble]

Illegals of course.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ouch. "

Oh, snap, a comment on an obscure substack.

That will show ICE!

[Michael P]

Clearly, posting inane left-wing taking points on a blog counts as a "real job".

[apedad]

US farmers caught in the middle of shutdown and Trump’s Argentina bailout. White House has no timeline for fix

President Donald Trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place, forced to balance the government shutdown-linked delay of promised emergency aid for American farmers with continued efforts to prop up a political ally in Latin America.

The Trump administration had repeatedly promised to stand up a bailout of American farmers, who have been hit particularly hard by the president’s tariff war.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the Trump administration will soon recall some furloughed regional USDA officials to help distribute funds beneficiaries of existing aid programs ahead of the coming harvest.

But White House officials say recalling USDA officials won’t be enough to stand up the new China-related relief effort, with one official suggesting that the effort would include “multiple teams” spanning multiple agencies, including at USDA and the Departments of Treasury and Commerce.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3858908/us-farmers-caught-middle-shutdown-argentina-bailout-white-house-no-fix/

The farmers voted for this.

Meanwhile Trump is prioritizing Argentine farmers over those in America.

[Estragon]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-warn-trumps-argentina-beef-proposal-could-rattle-us-ranchers.amp

[ThePublius]

And note that before this you guys were criticizing Trump for the high beef prices. He can't do anything that you don't criticize him for.

[Estragon]

“you guys were criticizing”

Was I? In any event, here are the critics:

“Rep. Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D., is leading seven other House GOP lawmakers in a letter to the president on Tuesday evening […] the letter is also signed by Reps. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., Troy Downing, R-Mont., Gabe Evans, R-Colo., Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., and Republican Study Committee Chair August Pfluger, R-Texas.”

[hobie]

Uh Oh.

The same week after Kirk's assassination by right wing extremist...the same week the FBI made the ADL disappear its dossier on the right wing extremism of Turning Point...apparently the DOJ also disappeared it's own 2024 report on domestic terrorism...which said:

"Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2]"

And like the ADL, the DOJ has the receipts to prove it.

Luckily the Internet never forgets
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911012550/https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

Se also:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/justice-department-study-far-right-extremist-violence

All part of that knowledge bubble you're creating for yourselves, hayseeds

[loki13]

By the way, I recommend reading Jack Smith's letter to Grasserly.

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rEkNKjy1lIkc/v0

It shows exactly how the current shock & awe & lie & move on tactics are used right now to infame passion and anger by simply making sh... stuff up for a new cycle to get people's blood all angry, knowing that the rubes don't care about the facts.

Go on, read it. The bombshell y'all have been talking about? Well, here's the thing:
1. As people have repeatedly stated, this wasn't a tap or surveillance, but toll records for four days.
2. During Trump's first term, Trump's DOJ subpoenaed the communication records of two Democratic members of congress and 43 of their staffers regarding leaks.
3. This wasn't a bombshell, or concealed- it was apparent on the face of the indictment, was included in the special counsel's report, and this was disclosed in discovery to Trump's lawyers who are now serving in the DOJ.

In other words- hype up a big nothing, trust that the rubes will run with it, mischaracterize or lie about what it means, and trust that the lie will live on long after the actual facts matter. Rinse, repeat.

[Mr. Bumble]

Grasserly?

[DDHarriman]

Sounds a lot like 'stray voltage'...

[Estragon]

Ka$h is toast. And who told him to wear that jacket on TV?? They have his replacement lined up, he can start serving in December.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6382234662112

[Life of Brian]

Dang, Hannity is still around? He's sounding a bit rough.

Re "toast," let's touch base after the new year.

[DDHarriman]

Why can Democrats today, openly and publicly, claim the 2024 election was stolen, but after 2020 no conservative could without the full weight of the government and institutions coming down on them to silence them.

What changed?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well time is linear, and people can learn from past events and apply those lessons to current situation. And certain segments of the left noticed that after four years there were actually no long term consequences for people lying about election results politically. And there weren’t any legally, so long as they didn’t break into the capitol, election severs, or try and submit fraudulent election documents, or make specific false claims about election workers or companies. And to the extent that those people suffered legal consequences…it was a short to medium term thing.

Also elected “democrats” with the potential exception of Jasmine Crockett aren’t doing this. Notice that Kamala and the other Dems conceded whereas Trump lied and claimed he won when he didn’t and then illegally tried to stay in power. This is why they aren’t coming down on anyone: no one prominent is saying this and they want to use their power elsewhere.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Oh I see. Because the Democrats didn't punish conservatives enough back in 2020, it's totally okay and not democracy harming today.

I bet you blame short skirts for rape and guns f or violence.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t think election denialism is good, which is why I don’t do it. Just pointing out that people won’t care as much if there isn’t really any political cost.

[David Nieporent]

Who was the imbecile last week who thought RedheadedPharoh couldn't be the same poster as the other usernames?

[Magister]

Life of Brian, to answer your rhetorical question.

[Life of Brian]

Well, you read that comment about as carefully as you've ever read anything I've written. Nieporent vibed that RHP was the apocryphal One True Shitposter's handle between BCD and JHBHBE. I pointed out why that didn't fit.

[Magister]

It remains that Life of Brian was the commenter referred to by David Nieporent; nobody else in comments last week made such an assertion.

The same person can post under multiple names at the same time (Martinned and Martinned2; joe_dallas and his sockpuppet, for several known examples). That multiple names must not be the same person because both names were posting at the same time is simply wrong.

[Life of Brian]

"It remains" that I was the target of Nieporent's (and now yours by adoption) latest shameless contortion? I guess if you're determined to come out of this being correct about something, that's about all you have to work with.

[Magister]

The only person who disputed the assertion was Life of Brian. Your belief that somebody could not post under multiple names was wrong.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "Who was the imbecile last week who thought RedheadedPharoh couldn't be the same poster as the other usernames?"

I don't see anywhere that LoB implied that RHP "couldn't be the same poster." He merely pointed out some observations that don't align with your theory that RHP is the One True Shitposter. So LoB took a skeptical but moderate position.

Alternatively, you guys (DMN, Estragon, Il Douche, and now Magister) implied there, like here, that RHP *MUST* be the same poster as DDHarriman, Magnus, JHBHBE, Lex, BCD (others?). As DMN intimates here, to think otherwise is imbecilic.

To me, your careful mis-statement of LoB's argument makes you guys look just plain malicious. Shit talk being what it is, it's pretty pathetic you don't have better opportunities to make legitimate arguments about something, anything, somewhere else here, anywhere else.

Resume your dumbass attack on LoB. I don't think he'll capitulate, but if he does, it could be a rare and hard-won victory for the left.

[Magister]

I implied nothing of the sort, here or elsewhere; I reported that it was Life of Brian who disputed that belief because one person could or would not have multiple accounts, and I provided counterexamples. Bwaah's white knighting for Life of Brian continues.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe you were asleep during the 2024 election but it went off with little trouble. VP Harris conceded quickly and certification went well. Not sure where you thought up the idea that any significant number of people thought the election was stolen. Unless you found someone on the internet saying it but the internet is such a reliable source.

[David Nieporent]

What changed?

Nothing, including the fact that you are just making shit up.

[M L]

Guess who else had a ballroom.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2025/10/22/hollywood-celebrities-melt-down-over-trump-white-house-ballroom-construction-hitler-had-a-large-ballroom-too/

[John F. Carr]

But we've got the biggest balls of them all.

[Sarcastr0]

Mia Farrow mentions Hitler, and that's the headline.

I didn't find much else in the article worth a lot of interest - they're mad, who would guess!
But then I don't get the Breitbart celeb hating bucks.

[A Japanese Student]

PM Takaichi was elected (by the Diet) as the 104th Prime Minister of Japan. After losing Komei coalition she picked Ishin as the new partner.

As expected, the policy document lists conservative priorities. It is available at https://storage2.jimin.jp/pdf/news/information/211626.pdf - I'll list the main ones.

Economic Policies:
- The "temporary" rate of gasoline tax (which is actually permanent) is to be repealed.
- Subsidies for electricity and gas. They've done this a couple times since COVID; I once got a bill of less than a dollar because of "government discount".
- CPI-pegged tax brackets and refundable tax credits.
- Establishing DOGE.
- "Considering" (without committing, so probably not gonna happen) two-year sales tax exemption for food.
- Abandon plans to send checks to everyone (which LDP proposed during the election cycle)

Social Security:
- This is controversial - ending national health insurance coverage of OTC-available drug prescriptions. (NHI covers 30% of all prescription, no deductible.) Things like asthma medication, pain relief, aspirin, etc.
- Increasing retirement age from 65.
- Reducing coverage for elderly healthcare.

Constitution:
- Establishing a LDP-Ishin drafting committee for Article 9 amendment.
- Submitting a constitutional amendment with an emergency delegation clause in 2026.
- Permanent establishment of drafting committee on both Houses.
- Keeping the same-surname-after-marriage policy, while giving legal effects to using former surname.
- Banning desecration of Japanese flags. Existing law bans desecration of other countries' flags; prosecution is very limited and scholarly view is that it only punishes desecration of government-owned flags.

Diplomacy & National Security:
- Establishing within Ministry of Foreign Affairs a bureau for peace negotiations.
- Purchasing long-range missiles and new submarines.

Intelligence:
- Establishing a bureau of national intelligence.
- Counter-intelligence-related laws, including Basic Act, Foreign Agent Registration Act, and Lobbying Disclosure Act

Others:
- Promoting nuclear energy.
- Investing in plant factories.
- Regulating solar energy farms.
- Appointing a minister for foreigner issues.
- Tackling visa abuse.
- Establishing Committee on Foreign Investments, and regulating purchase of real estate by noncitizens and foreign corporations.
- Free high schools. (Probably also includes private schools.)
- Free elementary school meals.
- Significantly increasing research grants.
- Designating Osaka as the "second capital" of Japan by law - because, guess what, Osaka is where Ishin gets the votes.
- No conclusion on corporate campaign finance (yet).
- Reducing, by 10%, the number of representatives from the proportional representation. Ishin has always complained that Japan has too many lawmakers. This decimates the Communist and other smaller, usually more liberal parties.

[John F. Carr]

"Increasing retirement age from 65."

The French appear to be reversing the increase in retirement age from 62 to 64.

[John F. Carr]

Nicolas Sarkozy is now in prison for campaign finance violations from 2007.

[ReaderY]

Suppose a state legislature passed a law similar to the one in Chiaffolo v. Washington, but this time making it illegal for a Presidential Elector to vote for:

(1) in a blue state, any candidate convicted of a felony or whom the state courts determine committed insurrection.

(2) in a red state, any candidate not endorsed by the Republican party.

Would either or both laws be constitutional?

[John F. Carr]

I think (1) is out. We already litigated that.

Form (2) as written probably fails. There are equivalent methods. The legislature abolishes the popular vote and makes the election method be a meeting of the legislature on election day to choose elector. I don't know if the legislature could get away with putting only one name on the ballot.

[ReaderY]

For both (1) and (2), under the proposed law, anybody who wants to can have his name on the ballot. Nothing in the proposed law limits who can appear on the ballot in any way. The law only concerns what the state’s electors can do.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe it's already been established that, while states aren't obligated to select their electors on the basis of a popular election, once they've chosen to do so, the voters get to pick the winner, not the legislature.

If you were up to that sort of mischief, you'd have to do it at the point of ballot access; The the judiciary have been very lenient about letting states bar third party and independent candidates from the ballot, and in the process have set precedents that could be used to keep major party candidates off the ballot, too.

And thus unavailable for the voters to vote for.

But it would have to be at the level of party, not candidate, because the established precedent is that states aren't allowed to add to the qualifications for federal office.

[William of Brooklyn]

I think that's half right. AFTER votes are cast as the prescribed method, then the legislature cannot erase their effect. But BEFORE an election takes place, a legislature could choose to change the method of determining electors.

[ReaderY]

Assume the law is passed and in effect before the election.

[ReaderY]

The proposed law doesn’t address ballot access at all. So far as the law is concerned, anyone who wants to can appear on the ballot. It only regulates the behavior of the state’s electors. Nothing to do with ballot access.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, and what I'm saying is that, at least as I understand it, the current precedent is that once states decide to hold elections, they have to let the outcome of the election be controlling, and that they can't try to jury rig in additional qualifications for holding federal office.

I personally think the current precedents are an incoherent mess, as a result of trying to reconcile a system for selecting Presidents that deliberately wasn't democratic, with voting rights.

[ducksalad]

states aren't allowed to add to the qualifications for federal office

Do you consider the following added qualifications?

(a) Making it illegal for an elector to vote for any person who they were not pledged to support prior to the election. I don't see anything in Article II about any pledges. Sounds added to me!

(b) Making it illegal for an elector to vote for any person who did not win the popular vote in the state. I don't see anything in Article II about popular vote either. Sounds added to me!

But many states do (a), and the point is to effectively achieve (b).
So it seems to me reasonable for ReaderY to ask why these prohibitions are OK but other prohibitions a legislature might dream up are not.

I think the real reason has nothing to do with the written constitution. The SC is enforcing an unwritten principle that once a popular election gets held it has to determine who gets the office, even if there was no requirement to hold an election at all. Why? They are scared that angry voters would decide that the tree of liberty needs watering.

ReaderY's proposed laws would be just fine if there was no popular election held, and people had not developed an expectation that there would be one.

[Michael P]

Electors aren't federal officers. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-4/ALDE_00013801/, citing In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379–80 (1890).

The federal Constitution does require the state legislature to prescribe the process for appointing legislators. Changing that mid-process offends common sense and fairness, although it's not obvious how federal courts would resolve a case over it: it might be dismissed for lack of standing or for being a political question, it could be upheld as not explicitly prohibited, or it could be struck down as violating a number of vaguely defined and sloppily applied clauses.

[John F. Carr]

Whoever chooses the electors on election day is free to choose. If the legislature sets up a process to determine a list of candidates to be chosen from on election day, that process can not disqualify a candidate for insurrection.

What if the legislature didn't mention qualifications but passed a law abolishing party selection and designating Newsom and Whitmer as the two candidates in November? I think that's allowed. And if some lawmakers argued that Vance should be excluded because of his ties to an insurrectionist? I think the principle that the courts do not like to inquire into the legislative process should apply.

[Brett Bellmore]

"that process can not disqualify a candidate for insurrection."

That's not quite what the Supreme court held. They can indeed disqualify a candidate for insurrection, but per current federal enabling legislation, that requires the candidate to have been convicted of insurrection in a federal trial. Just being accused of it, or a judicial 'finding', or whatever, doesn't cut it.

I believe that, constitutionally, a state legislature could indeed just up and vote that the state's electors would be assigned to a particular candidate, so long as they did so before election day, in place of holding a Presidential election. This would actually be closer to original intent than holding an election...

[Brett Bellmore]

"The SC is enforcing an unwritten principle that once a popular election gets held it has to determine who gets the office, even if there was no requirement to hold an election at all. Why?"

I think this is a fair complaint. We've got a system to democratically elect Presidents cobbled together on top of a rather deliberately non-democratic system, and the Court is trying to enforce the cobbling, not the constitution itself.

Really, the system for electing Presidents needs a top down rebuild.

I will raise a point, though, since the topic of voting rights is on the table, and ballot access.

Until the Australian ballot was adopted in the US, somewhat after the Civil war, the right to vote, though who had it was limited and inconsistent, was itself absolute. It was a right to vote for whoever you damned well pleased, no matter what those in power thought of your choice.

If you voted for somebody who wasn't qualified for the office, you might be wasting your vote, but you could still cast that vote.

If somebody who wasn't qualified for the office got the most votes, they won the election, they just were barred from taking office.

It was a very absolute right.

It remained a very absolute right at first even after the adoption of pre-printed ballots. Even if somebody wasn't listed, you could write their name in, and have it counted.

Then incumbents realized that by printing the ballots, they had the power to control who the public could vote for, and "ballot access" became a thing. They started controlling elections by controlling access to the ballot.

Then, not so long ago, states decided that wasn't enough, and began refusing to count, or even allow casting, write in votes.

I believe we took a wrong turn there. The right to vote is, properly, the right to vote for whoever you want, and governments have no business telling people who they can vote for. Indeed, to the extent the right to vote is constitutionally protected, it is that absolute right that is protected, not some deracinated right to vote for whoever the government deigns to let you vote for.

[David Nieporent]

Until the Australian ballot was adopted in the US, somewhat after the Civil war, the right to vote, though who had it was limited and inconsistent, was itself absolute. It was a right to vote for whoever you damned well pleased, no matter what those in power thought of your choice.

If you voted for somebody who wasn't qualified for the office, you might be wasting your vote, but you could still cast that vote.

If somebody who wasn't qualified for the office got the most votes, they won the election, they just were barred from taking office.

It was a very absolute right.

This is just silly quasi-formalism. The "right to vote" is a right to have the vote counted, not merely the right to put a person's name on the ballot. And even pre-Australian ballot, nobody had that right. If in 1872 you wrote the name of a non-natural born citizen, they just threw it out; they didn't tabulate it to see how many votes Otto von Bismarck got.

[Poxigah146]

Leftists are whining at a video showing ICE agents arresting a day laborer.

I'm happy to see it. That's what I voted for. I want these people out of America.

[ThePublius]

Do you believe this is really the detective working the Louvre jewel heist, and not AI generated?

https://x.com/MsMelChen/status/1981022488722047463

[Krayt]

"...who wears a fedora unironically!"

I'm less concerned of someone with a fun sense of fashion (do they do Halloween there?) than that he looks young, and, regardless of IQ, all great detectives have decades of experience under their belt.

[David Nieporent]

all great detectives have decades of experience under their belt.

Um, I think you're forgetting about Encyclopedia Brown.

[Magister]

Excellent counterexample!

[Magister]

all great detectives have decades of experience under their belt.

Hmm, that sounds like sour grapes from someone who would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.

[santamonica811]

heh

[ThePublius]

Halloween is a big thing in France, at least since 1999 or so.

[JerKat]

Given Trump's illustrious history as a real estate developer, who do the contractors sue when they get stiffed on construction the new WH ballroom?

[SRG2]

Someone will come up with a movie plot where one of the contractors plants a bomb under the foundations, to be detonated at a suitable moment

[NvEric]

Frictions stem from density. Population density drives discontent, despair, and violence. Maybe not all, enough to be concerning.

A correlation and causation is true that population density negatively alters human reasoning more than perceived or acknowledged. Increases in friction drive reactions to where times are shortened, thus bypassing enough rational thought. Civilized behavior doesn't have enough time to develop as density increases.

These observations of the modern world also reflect the likewise nature of matter when it's density increases.

[Martinned]

FYI, Trump demands more loyalty from his base. Criticism is not supposed to happen! (Nor is profitable business, apparently.)

The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% Tariff on Brazil. If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years — Terrible! It would be nice if they would understand that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking, also!

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in the real world: China imports no US soybeans in September for first time in seven years

Guess where they're getting their soybeans instead?

Brazil arrivals last month jumped 29.9% year-on-year to 10.96 million tons, accounting for 85.2% of China's total imports of the oilseed, customs data showed, while shipments from Argentina rose 91.5% to 1.17 million tons, or 9% of the total.

[Martinned]

Here's an amusing oopsie from Eric Posner in 2010:

Eric Posner Reviews Ackerman's "Decline and Fall of the American Republic"

POTUS-phobia
Eric A. Posner
October 20, 2010 The New Republic

Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale University Law School, does not mean that the United States has collapsed like the Roman Empire, or that it will. His title refers to the American constitutional traditions of limited government—what the Founders and some modern legal scholars call the “republican” form of government. Ackerman thinks that the presidency has burst these limits: it has become too powerful, and eventually it will be seized by an ideological zealot who will abuse executive powers. Ackerman does not predict what this zealot will do, nor when he will take power. The title and much of the text imply that the end times are here, or are inevitable unless we take strong actions today, but Ackerman commits himself only to the proposition that a zealot will take control in the foreseeable future with a probability greater than zero.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Ackerman thinks that the presidency has burst these limits: it has become too powerful, and eventually it will be seized by an ideological zealot who will abuse executive powers."
How about substituting "judiciary" for presidency and "judicial" for executive?

[Martinned]

You're welcome to write that book, but it's not the book that Bruce Ackerman wrote that Eric Posner wrote about. It would also be a book that's a lot less relevant for the situation the US is in today.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It would also be a book that's a lot less relevant for the situation the US is in today."
You haven't been paying attention.

[Martinned]

O, I've been paying attention. I just haven't drunk the Trumpist kool-aid.

[Michael P]

Why is that amusing? It came true just months later, although in that case the figurehead President was a senile puppet of the unelected, unaccountable zealots.

[Martinned]

Yes, the guy who said this is definitely senile:

"Buttigieg spent billions fixing the air traffic control. They used copper wire going into glass wire. Any union electrician here or any non-union electrician would say you can't hook copper into glass. It doesn't work. They spent billions, turned on the system & it was stone cold blank"

[David Nieporent]

You're confused.

[Martinned]

It seems almost impossible to disentangle this from other cultural differences that correlate heavily with language. (See also: the attempts to test Weber's hypothesis about The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.) But it's an amusing result all the same:

Speaking of debt: Framing, guilt, and economic choices

Cevat Giray Aksoy Mathias Dolls Justyna Klejdysz Andreas Peichl Lisa Windsteiger / 23 Oct 2025

In many Germanic languages [including Dutch], the word for ‘debt’ also means ‘guilt’. This column explores whether the linguistic overlap leads to greater debt aversion in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using a guilt-laden term reduces willingness to borrow, lowers approval for government debt, and influences firms’ financing plans and politicians’ framing of fiscal policy. While support for public debt goes down with use of the laden term, the effect disappears when the purpose of the debt is clear. Linguistic framing may help guide borrowing toward socially optimal levels.

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/speaking-debt-framing-guilt-and-economic-choices

[Brett Bellmore]

"Linguistic framing may help guide borrowing toward socially optimal levels."

LOL. Doesn't this presuppose they know what the socially optimal levels are? Shouldn't that be the real finding, if they do, not this linguistic trifle?

[Martinned]

Not necessarily. It just presupposes that the socially optimal level of borrowing is less than the level of borrowing you would get without the mechanism the authors describe.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, seriously, if you can know when you're below the socially optimal level of borrowing, you can find it, because you can just keep raising the borrowing until you notice that you're no longer below it.

I find the whole idea of a socially optimal level of borrowing problematic, because what's socially optimal would be judged by fundamentally contested criteria.

[Martinned]

if you can know when you're below the socially optimal level of borrowing, you can find it, because you can just keep raising the borrowing until you notice that you're no longer below it.

Yes, but there are a lot of mechanisms in economics that are decentralised, that don't require any of the relevant actors to have any knowledge about the market/economy as a whole. No baker knows what the equilibrium price of bread is, they just raise or lower prices and observe what that does to sales and profits.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. It's really the idea of "socially optimal" that I'm taking exception to.

[John F. Carr]

The Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council has three more weeks to find somebody masochistic or partisan enough to take on the case against Trump and alleged co-conspirators.

In the North, we just saw what happens when nobody is willing to take on a politically tainted prosecution. Blogger "Turtleboy" was charged in relation to his activism related to the Karen Read murder trial. Alllegedly he committed witness tampering and wiretapping. A special prosecutor was appointed because it looked like the charges were retaliation for unfavorable statements about the prosecution of Read. For some reason the victim of the crime involved the special prosecutor in her lawsuit against Turtleboy. So the prosecutor was disqualified. Nobody was willing to step in to replace him. The charges were dropped for lack of a prosecutor.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/10/22/norfolk-da-drops-intimidation-charge-against-turtleboy-blogger/

(I wrote "witness tampering" where local reporting uses "witness intimidation." The crime includes almost any improper influence on a witness, not only threats and intimidation.)

[Martinned]

the case against Trump and alleged co-conspirators

Which one? It's hard to keep track. He literally does crime faster than people can prosecute him.

[John F. Carr]

I believe there is only one in Georgia. The charges include a big RICO conspiracy. Trying the case will take years and millions of dollars.

[Martinned]

I just went to get some lunch, and one of the options involved vegan bacon. (I picked something else.) A question occurred to me: Is vegan bacon kosher/halal? Is it the thought that counts or the substance?

[Michael P]

Turkey bacon can be kosher, so I expect vegan bacon could also be kosher, although in my (n=1) experience, an observant Jew might still look askance at it. I suspect being halal would be similar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bacon is pork belly. Anything else should be labeled imitation bacon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hog jowl bacon is just imitation?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe I should have been less specific but the point is it is pork.

[ThePublius]

I agree with Bumble, there is no such thing as bacon that is not made of pork, no more so than there can be trans-men and trans-women. Bacon is pork.

"The EU Parliament has voted to ban the use of meat-related terms like "burger," "sausage," and "steak" for plant-based products, a move intended to protect farmers and clarify labeling for consumers."

[Martinned]

It looks like Ed got his wish after all:

In a CBS 60 Minutes interview, US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff described Gaza’s destruction in stark, almost apocalyptic terms, yet simultaneously dismissed accusations of genocide, contrasting emotional eyewitness accounts with a legal justification for "Israel’s" war.

Jared Kushner, former senior advisor to US President Donald Trump, compared the destruction in Gaza to the aftermath of a nuclear strike, yet refrained from calling it genocide. Speaking with CBS’ Lesley Stahl, in an interview alongside US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, Kushner recalled witnessing the devastation firsthand, “It looked almost like a nuclear bomb had been set off in that area.”

https://ansarollah.com.ye/en/archives/794771

[Michael P]

You are surprised that intelligent, informed people didn't call not-genocide "genocide", and think this reflects on someone else.

[Martinned]

I didn't say anything about genocide. I said something about nukes.

As for "intelligent, informed people", I didn't say anything about them either. The quotes are from Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, neither of which could find their own ass without Google Maps to help.

[Michael P]

What, you think Ed's wish was for it to be "almost like" Gaza got nuked?

If you are able to, kindly refrain from acting so much like a moron.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 repeatedly called for nuking Gaza; the destruction in Gaza is comparable to the aftermath of a nuclear strike, according to Jared Kushner. This is closer to what Dr. Ed 2 called for than snowplow murders or shooting people at the border or civil wars. Why is this hard to understand?

[Sarcastr0]

Michael's reflexive MAGAness has grown to the point he's white knighting Dr. Ed!

[ThePublius]

"I didn't say anything about genocide. I said something about nukes."

You didn't say anything! You quoted an article. Why don't you say what you mean, what was your point?

And by the Whitkoff and Kushner are a lot smarter than you, as evidenced by their position and accomplishments.

[Sarcastr0]

TP, you failed to read and then got mad about it.

Again.

[ThePublius]

I didn't get mad about anything. You're constantly telling people how they feel and how they react without any evidence, as if you're clairvoyant or something. It's tiring.

[Sarcastr0]

You have built a whole edifice of nonsense Internet etiquette to get mad at.

-People posting cited excerpts - but without quotation marks!!
-People posting quotes - but it was in quotation marks so do they really believe it!?
-People posting jokes - but you didn't get it so it's really a lie!!

Your ineptitude at basic context and reading comprehension is not everyone's problem.
----
You post like you're angry most of the time. I mean look at this post, and the one above.
Even when you post articles, it's mostly to get mad at.

You can deny it; I think that's bullshit.
You've left plenty of evidence for folks to make up their minds.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you sir have built a whole edifice on being a douche poster.

[ThePublius]

And, by the way, I did read the article, which is only a couple of paragraphs, and it's true that Martinned didn't say anything on the topic, but just quoted part (nearly half?) of the piece.

[Sarcastr0]

He talked about nukes and the quote was about Gaza looking like a nuclear bomb going off.

There's nothing more to say; you have nothing real to object to.

[ThePublius]

I was just picking a nit, that he didn't say anything, the author of the quoted article did. And the quote was about both Kushner's observation and that he denied there was genocide.

[David Nieporent]

And by the Whitkoff and Kushner are a lot smarter than you, as evidenced by their position and accomplishments.

Like Donald Trump, Jared Kushner was smart enough to pick a very rich dad to be born to.

[ThePublius]

He's been very effective and successful in both making peace deals and in managing investment funds. He actually does things.

[David Nieporent]

He has not, in fact, done either of those things. The "Abraham Accords" made peace between countries that weren't at war. And the Gaza peace deal is… not.

And he almost bankrupted his family company until he got an infusion of cash when his father-in-law was elected president. (I guess you could argue that he was smart in his choice of in laws.)

[Michael P]

Who gave this guy a CDL?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Oct/23/indian-origin-truck-driver-arrested-after-dui-crash-in-california-that-killed-three

[ThePublius]

On another aspect, have you noticed that seemingly all of these guys who shouldn't have CDLs and entered illegally are Sikhs?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[ThePublius]

Well, I have.

[ThePublius]

Google:

"Sikh Americans form a significant portion of the U.S. trucking industry, with estimates suggesting they make up 20% of the workforce nationally and as much as 40% on the West Coast. Their prevalence is due to several factors, including the high demand for truckers and the compatibility of the profession with the Sikh faith, particularly regarding the maintenance of uncut hair and wearing a turban. Recent events, such as a deadly accident in Florida, have led to increased scrutiny and harassment of Sikh truck drivers despite their essential role in the nation's supply chain.
Role in the trucking industry
Large workforce: By 2019, there were over 150,000 Sikh truckers in the U.S., a number that is likely higher now.
Filling a shortage: The trucking industry faces a chronic driver shortage, and Sikh immigrants have helped fill this gap.
Economic impact: Sikhs have created a self-sustaining ecosystem of trucking businesses, including a large number of independent owner-operators, and they own an estimated 20% of US trucking firms.
Compatibility with faith
Kesh: A core tenet of Sikhism is kesh, or uncut hair, which many other jobs require cutting due to safety standards.
Turban: The turban (dastaar) is worn to cover the hair, a practice fully accommodated by trucking, unlike some professions.
Kirpan: The trucking profession also allows for the carrying of the kirpan, a ceremonial dagger, which is not feasible in many other jobs due to safety codes.
Recent challenges
Increased harassment: Following a fatal crash in Florida in August 2025, many Sikh truckers have reported increased harassment, online hate, and other forms of racial profiling.
Intense scrutiny: The incident has put the community under intense scrutiny, with fears of being unfairly targeted and questions raised about their place on the nation's highways.
Policy impact: Some reports suggest that recent policy changes, which include the freezing of foreign trucker visas and the inability of some asylum seekers to renew their commercial driver's licenses, are negatively impacting Sikh truckers' livelihoods.
Sikh American Truck Drivers, Sikh American truckers, Punjabi ...
Sikhs account for an estimated 20% of the country's truckers. By 2019, there were more than 150,000 Sikh truckers in the United St...

The Asian American Education Project

After a fatal crash, Sikh truck drivers in the US fear backlash - BBC
Sep 13, 2025 — There are approximately 750,000 Sikhs in the US, and about 150,000 working in the trucking industry, mostly as drivers...

BBC

Sikh Truck Drivers Face Hatred After Florida Crash by Indian ...
Sep 5, 2025 — The Sikh trucking community in the US is facing backlash after a deadly crash in Florida on August 12 involving truck d..."

[David Nieporent]

So you're citing the fact that an estimated 20% of truckers are Sikhs as support for your "observation" that the majority of illegal immigrant truckers are Sikh?

[ThePublius]

When I see a story about an illegal immigrant driver having an accident, and they publish a picture, it's quite often a Sikh, more often than to just be a coincidence.

[ThePublius]

"your "observation" that the majority of illegal immigrant truckers are Sikh?"

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I said:

"...seemingly all of these guys who shouldn't have CDLs and entered illegally are Sikhs?"

Sure, it's anecdotal. Here are two recent ones:

Aug. 12, 2025
"In Florida, Harjinder Singh faces manslaughter and vehicular homicide charges, and is being held without bond. Florida authorities say he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 2018. However, California officials say federal authorities told them he was in the country legally with a work permit when the state issued him a driver’s license."
https://sentinelcolorado.com/uncategorized/a-deadly-crash-a-divided-nation-why-sikh-truckers-are-now-in-the-crossfire/

Oct. 20:

"The suspected semi-truck driver behind an eight-car accident in Ontario, California, has been identified as Jashanpreet Singh, an illegal alien from India, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials."

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/10/22/alleged-truck-driver-fatal-8-car-accident-identified-indian-illegal-alien/

It makes sense that if there is a large community of Sikh truckers, that that would be a magnet for Sikh's who enter illegally.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I said:

You think it helps your position to quibble that you said "seemingly all" rather than "a majority"?

[ThePublius]

Yes, there's a big difference.

[ThePublius]

To answer your question, I don't know, but I guess it was California. He entered through California and was released into the U.S. in March of 2022. California is the only state that doesn't enforce the English language proficiency requirement for CDLs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Rape is, in many cases, considered an exceptionally serious offense that could justify the deportation of a refugee. However, each case must be evaluated individually. Given the nature and duration of the incident, the court considers that it doesn’t constitute an exceptionally serious crime that warrants deportation,” the court stated, according to the outlet.