Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind? (Sorry for the delay posting this today.)

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Late but it's back.
Let the games begin.

[Enrique]

Did someone say games? I compare and contrast Adam Smith’s taxonomy of social groups and Thomas Schelling’s taxonomy of games:

https://priorprobability.com/2024/02/03/a-possible-connection-between-adam-smiths-taxonomy-of-social-groups-and-thomas-schellings-taxonomy-of-games/

[ThomasJerry]

The website at https://tnreginet-portal.com/
serves as the online portal for the Tamil Nadu Registration Department, offering property-registration, encumbrance-certificate (EC) viewing and guideline-value search services. It allows users to register sale deeds, gift deeds and mortgages digitally, reducing the need for in-person visits to government offices.

[Magister]

There do seem to be corresponding levels. You have associated the mercenary social groups with the pure coordination games (which game stores often classify as cooperative games) and the lovely social groups with mixed-motive games; that seems backward to me.

One example would be role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. In many cases, the players set the category of game through their actions (accept a quest to kill the dragon for the 100 gold pieces offered by the village elders, or murder the villagers and take the 100 gold because dragons are harder to kill; cooperate with other players until the group gets "The Most Fabulous Object in the World" and then turn on them rather than share it; etc.). In some cases, the kind of game is mandated by the rules, in the game world or in the real world; so organized play at game stores mostly mandates pure coordination among players, because they don't want to alienate newbies from the hobby.

[Armchair]

So...it's day 29 of the Government Shutdown. Federal employees (including the troops) aren't getting paid. SNAP benefits for millions of poor Americans are about to run out. The GOP is trying to pass a continuing resolution to get people fed and paid. But the Democrats have filibustered it...12 or more times.

But WHY are the Democrats filibustering a simple CR? They say it's "because of health care". Well, let's really examine why. See, back during COVID, Democrats passed a bill that suspended the income caps on subsidies for health insurance. Previously, if as a family of 4 making more than 4 times the poverty limit (~$124,000)....you wouldn't get subsidies from the government to buy health insurance. Which...makes sense. That would put you in the top quartile in the US. But Democrats "temporarily" suspended that cap during COVID. They could've made it permanent...but decided not to. It was just "temporary" they said, due to COVID. So, you could be making $200,000, $300,000 a year and still be getting subsidies from the government for health insurance.

Fast forward to 2025. COVID is over. Those "temporary" subsidies for people making $300,000 a year to get health insurance are expiring. But Democrats don't like that. They've decided to filibuster and prevent people from getting food stamps, because they "need" those people making $300,000 a year to keep getting government subsidies.

You have to wonder sometimes...

[Martinned]

Federal employees (including the troops) aren't getting paid.

Is ICE getting paid? Because their enthusiasm for razzias doesn't seem to have diminished.

[ThePublius]

Razzias? Oh, get lost.

[Martinned]

I look forward to your explanation of how this is different from a) a razzia, and b) a general warrant (you know, the whole thing that inspired the 4th amendment).

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/03/us/chicago-apartment-ice-raid

Adults and children alike were pulled from their Chicago apartments, crying and screaming, during a large overnight raid that has left tenants and neighbors shaken.
(...)
Ballard recalled seeing residents detained outside the building for hours, after seeing a Black Hawk helicopter flying over the five-story building in the city’s South Shore neighborhood and military-sized vehicles and agents filling the parking lot early Tuesday morning.
(...)
Shattered windows marked the apartment building as seen in photos from the aftermath of the raid. Hallways were lined with debris and plastic bags while clothing, wall decor and lamps became piles of litter inside apartment units.
(...)
Tenants said it appears everyone in the building was detained by federal officers, including US citizens.

“It was scary, because I had never had a gun in my face,” Pertissue Fisher, who lives in the building, told CNN affiliate WLS. “They asked my name and my date of birth and asked me, did I have any warrants? And I told them, ‘No, I didn’t.’”

Fisher said she was handcuffed anyway, before being released around 3 a.m. and was told anyone with an outstanding warrant, even if it was unrelated to immigration, would not be released.

[Bob from Ohio]

"anyone with an outstanding warrant, even if it was unrelated to immigration, would not be released"

Oh noes, they were going to keep criminals in custody. the bastards.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know a warrant isn’t necessary indicative of a conviction right?

[Brett Bellmore]

You know that an illegal immigrant with an outstanding warrant is an automatic flight risk, right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, I don’t know that, because that’s not how we determine whether someone is a flight risk in this country.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not how YOU do it, obviously.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Correct. I’m not a judge making bond decisions. And neither are you!

[wvattorney13]

What am I missing? Isn't a warrant an order from a judge to hold them in custody? Where I am from if you have a warrant and are picked up there is no release until you get in front of the judge and maybe he sets bond.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — Where you come from, do authorities who may or may not be police customarily break in to roust folks out of bed without knowing in advance that a warrant exists?

[wvattorney13]

I was responding to the article which stated that AFTER being detained those with a warrant would not be released.

That's not unusual. If you get swept up in something where you normally would have been released, but have a warrant out for your arrest, you will not be released.

The article implies that normally you would be released.

To your point, even if you are arrested unlawfully initially, once it is found that there is probable cause to detain you, the police are not required to release you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — Please cease avoiding the subject of rousting people out of bed without warrants, while they are in their own places of abode. If doing that is the means by which they came into custody, do you still think your previous insistence is the primary issue?

[ThePublius]

"military-sized vehicles"

Ha, ha, ha. Yea, CNN.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Military sized" -- built to operate on the "military highways" otherwise known as the Interstate Highways.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — A few weeks ago I saw a military-sized vehicle pulled on a heavy trailer, headed mysteriously toward Cape Cod. The truck pulling the trailer was emblazoned, "POLICE," without a clue in sight which police force, if any, was referred to.

The vehicle on the trailer was an apparent Caterpillar brand bulldozer, painted uniform dark army green, and modified to provide armored accommodation to a topside crew engaged in SWAT team assaults, providing them gun ports to shoot from. I know that because I looked it up. Here is a link to show what I saw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BzhCk36P0

To the question what something like that would be intended to do on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, or Nantucket, my answer is that it was maybe headed to Joint Base Cape Cod. Maybe to enable some SWAT training for Trump's just-announced lawless quick-reaction National Guard strike force.

Perhaps you think that's great. I think it's ominous. The notion is new to America of a general-purpose elite federal military force dedicated to intervention anywhere in the US, and not familiar in any prior context.

I wonder where else such training is ongoing, where the intended targets will be, and what the intended targets will be. Maybe that rig would prove useful to seize ballot boxes during upcoming mid-term elections?

[pdshaw]

Yes, at least one person in those apartments had a warrant for a violation of state criminal law and the Chicago PD came and picked him up. Did the Chicago PD do something wrong?

[shawn_dude]

I'm not a lawyer but it appears that Chicago PD's access we due to a warrantless search and seizure and illegal detention. So if, legally, the ends justify the means, then no, Chicago PD did nothing wrong.

[not guilty]

"Yes, at least one person in those apartments had a warrant for a violation of state criminal law and the Chicago PD came and picked him up. Did the Chicago PD do something wrong?"

Was the subject of the warrant in his own home? For Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980). To enter a third party's home in an attempt to apprehend the subject of an arrest warrant, a search warrant is required, absent consent or exigent circumstances. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981).

An arrest after entry of persons other than the resident of the premises would require probable cause as to each arrestee.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It doesn't sound like the feds had warrants. If not, this might be the type of thing the locals can prosecute in federal court.

[wvattorney13]

Sure. Good luck with that.

[Kazinski]

Yes ICE is definitely getting paid.

Not all appropriations have expired, and ICE got a very generous appropriation when the OBBBA passed Congress in early July.

[Martinned]

So no shutdown, then?

[Mr. Bumble]

Has there ever been?

[Bwaaah]

Honestly, not even close to one.

[Riva]

Well, Marty, unlike Democrat public sector union sloths, NGO refuse, and European bureaucrats, ICE agents are not in it for the money. And they have integrity. It's a real word. Look it up.

[Nelson]

“ ICE agents are not in it for the money. And they have integrity”

I’ve been told that laughing at least once a day is good for your health. Thank you for providing me with today’s laugh.

ICE agents have integrity … LOLOLOLOL!

[David Nieporent]

I think the bot is right that ICE agents aren't in it for the money; they'd gladly jump at the chance to beat up brown people for free.

[Riva]

As someone lacking integrity, your example may provide some useful contrast to help little Marty learn. I guess stupid assholes can serve a purpose after all. You have found your calling.

[Nelson]

Can you please just comment on your local politics in Russia? You don’t understand America as much as you think you do.

[loki13]

In America, you can go march down the street and protest against Trump!*

In Russian, you can also march down the street and protest against Trump!

See, not so different.

-Riva

*For now.

[Joe_dallas]

Armchair 3 minutes ago
" SNAP benefits for millions of poor Americans are about to run out. "

more important question is why are 1 out of 8 americans receiving snap benefits?

[Armchair]

I'm going to be honest...in the ranking of things to be stressed about, the number of people we're helping with food assistance isn't one of them.

If you've got concerns about getting people jobs, or so on, maybe that's a bigger picture type of thing. But I'm not going to object to feeding the hungry. I think it's the right thing to do, and well within our means.

[Michael P]

In abstract, yes -- but SNAP is about $100B/year, or 1.5% of federal spending. All things considered, that's a huge chunk of money, and we should care about it.

I definitely care about things that take up 1.5% of my annual income (regardless of whether it's measured pre- or post-tax).

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie has a personal interest in convincing some people 1.5 is actually quite big…

[Armchair]

I'm not saying it isn't something to care about at all.

But in the big scheme of things, for me, it's pretty far down the ranking list. And stressing because "1 of 8" people receive some food assistance (with the implication that needs to be reduced)...there's better places to spend your effort.

Antifraud provisions...sure. But "we need to cut more people off of food stamps"...No.

[Bwaaah]

ME TOO to your full take on SNAP

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure "more important question is why are 1 out of 8 americans receiving snap benefits" means wanting people to go hungry. For me anyway, the concern is that in a healthy society people[1] ought to generally be self sufficient. Having lots of people dependent on the charity of others is a sign something is a bit off.

I surely support health care for infants - their life circumstances certainly aren't their fault - but it seems something is out of whack when medicaid is funding 41% of births nationwide (63% in Louisiana!). That just doesn't strike me as a healthy, vibrant society.

[1]there are obviously exceptions - being a child happens to everyone, and with luck most of us will become elderly, and some unlucky few will get schizophrenia or become a quadriplegic in a car crash or whatever. But generally speaking, I think people are happier, and society better off, when most people support themselves. It's the only way to really be the captain of your own ship.

[Joe_dallas]

Agreed which makes one wonder why democrats are so insistent in destroying any remaining cornerstones of the most effective anti-poverty program since social security, being ending welfare as we know it which as established during the clinton administration.

[Armchair]

Health care / Medicaid is a different conversation from food stamps.

In terms of food stamps and healthy society, as I mentioned "If you've got concerns about getting people jobs, or so on, maybe that's a bigger picture type of thing." And it is. But right now....kicking people off of food stamps (for non-fraud reasons)...strikes me as a poor idea

[Joe_dallas]

Armchair - while it is a side issue, the democrats know what are the effective anti poverty programs and to positive features of those programs. As demonstrated during the "ending welfare as we know it" they are very much in favor of preventing effective programs.

[not guilty]

The origin of the food stamp program during the 1930s was to manage agricultural surpluses by making low income people better able to purchase food. That is why the program is administered by the U.S.D.A. According to Wikipedia, by 1943 the start of World War II had equalized the agricultural economy and the unemployment rate, and diminished the US government incentive to continue the program for those still in need.

The current program was begun in 1964 and expanded in 1977. The program is a boon to farmers and retailers, as well as to people who without the program would go hungry.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Antifraud provisions...sure. But "we need to cut more people off of food stamps"...No.

So what exactly would be the end result of any effective antifraud provisions other than to "cut more people off of food stamps"?

[Armchair]

In my head, I differentiate between "This person is violating the rules and stealing taxpayer money by defrauding SNAP" and "We need to save money, so we're going to take this person who is legally using SNAP and cut him off"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"We need to save money, so we're going to take this person who is legally using SNAP and cut him off"

Who said that?

[Armchair]

Nobody definitively said it, but it could be implied from the "1 in 8 Americans use SNAP." What it implies is that "less" people should be using it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What it implies is that "less" people should be using it.

No, it implies that he's asking why so many people are on it...which is a perfectly valid question given the current rate of usage. And even if what he asked DID imply what you state, it does not even remotely imply, "We need to save money, so we're going to take this person who is legally using SNAP and cut him off". That is a straw man of your own construction.

And...again...wouldn't fewer (not "less") people receiving SNAP benefits be the result of any effective antifraud measures, which you say you favor (which implies that you think too many people are receiving them)?

[Nelson]

“ I definitely care about things that take up 1.5% of my annual income”

Tell me, how much of that could be reduced? How would you do it? How much more are you willing to spend to lower that amount? Spend more until every dollar spent returns less than a dollar in savings?

People who bitch about costs without providing any numbers (or, alternatively, the “waste, fraud, and abuse” trope that never has any realistic numbers connected to it) are so tiresome. Do you have any detailed (or even realistic, but vague) suggestions about how to reduce the cost of SNAP?

[Michael Resanovic]

You pay a 100% tax? 🙂

America should be spending money on math...

[Poxigah146]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true and we should help hungry Americans. It doesn't mean that we should be importing third worlders who will almost definitely need this assistance.

[wvattorney13]

I'm sick of hearing Republicans complain about food stamps. I thought that we were against this stuff. Point of fact is that nobody starved in this country prior to food stamps.

It is appalling that now 45 million people believe that they are entitled to the largesse of taxpayers for a lifetime commitment to buy their chips, soda, and cookies.

And this hand wringing is not over a proposal to repeal the program. It is because it looks like people will not get their payments on schedule as demanded November 1. This, now according to Republicans of all people, is a travesty.

This is simply unsustainable to keep churning out generations of people who produce nothing, take everything, and demand more. It isn't compassion, it is enslavement.

[Magister]

Point of fact is that nobody starved in this country prior to food stamps.

People literally starved to death during the Great Depression. The greater problem was malnourishment and all the problems that follow that.

[Sarcastr0]

“ Point of fact is that nobody starved in this country prior to food stamps.”

Really? This seems an unsupported assertion that is load bearing for your whole rant here.

[santamonica811]

I have to assume that he was joking. It's such an obviously untruthful statement on its face that my immediate reaction was, "That has to be tongue-in-cheek."

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the size of many of the people I see using EBT, it will be next Nov. 1 before they are even close to starving.

[santamonica811]

That's both really unkind and reasonably funny.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — Food programs are a subsidy for many giant American employers. Without those programs, Wal-Mart might have to pay a living wage. Some military families would have to get paid more. Your critique will make sense when federal law requires an above-poverty wage sufficient for one earner to support a spouse and two children. Don't hold your breath.

[wvattorney13]

One of these days you guys will understand how the market works. An employee is not paid based on his particular need. An employee is paid based on what the market will bear for the value of his services. That's it. If there is a mismatch between the employee's needs and the value of his services, he needs to look elsewhere for the shortfall.

This deficiency of the employee is not the fault of the employer.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't the Lochner era.

[Bwaaah]

Was that a time when the mechanics of basic economics were different?

Of course, you don't in any way dispute what wvattorney13 said. That's your typical fashion of crafting words so as to say nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thus, a douche.

[Bwaaah]

Not just a douche. IL DOUCHE!

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — To pay the difference between a private employer deficiency and the market wage is a lunatic policy for government. The notion of doing it also blows up your presumption about how labor markets set wages. So you are not making much sense here.

Note to bystanders: wvattorney13 is here making himself an example among a myriad of others on this blog, to show the folly of ideological commitment in politics. What the examples have in common is the ideologues' habit to posit some kind of axiom—often economic—and then reason from the axiom to posit purported facts.

Along the way, if some un-reasoned fact appears by happenstance, and suggests a problem with the axiom, it gets discounted to zero. That's how axioms work. You start with a presumption axioms are always true, so, of course, anything which suggests otherwise must be a mistake, misunderstood, or inapplicable.

Ideology makes its axioms bullet proof, and its reasoning impervious to critique. It rules out skepticism. It upends the notion that valid hypotheses must be falsifiable.

Ideology leads to terrible politics. Ideological excess has been the field mark of most of the darkest chapters in history world-wide.

[Martinned]

more important question is why are 1 out of 8 americans receiving snap benefits

Because Iowa is disproportionately influential in the presidential elections process.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's 1 in 7 in Massachusetts, one of the richest states in the country, and it makes me think that taxes aren't high enough.

[Frank Drackman]

and 90% of them are Obese

[bernard11]

SNAP benefits for millions of poor Americans are about to run out.

Because Trump and Johnson are blocking them, you dishonest POS.

And stop blaming the Democrats for the shutdown. The GOP can just stop lying about the subsidies and keep them.

Just once, try being honest . I know it's tough for a dyed-in-wool lying Trump cultist, but try.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And stop blaming the Democrats for the shutdown."

Oh FFS.

Where the blame goes is pretty straightforward.

The Republicans are preserving the filibuster. One of the effects of that is that the Dems have the ability to filibuster the CR and shut down the government. So the Republicans are responsible for the fact that the Dems have the ability to shut down the government.

The Dems, OTOH, are the ones who are actually filibustering the CR and shutting down the government.

So the Dems are responsible for the shutdown.

[Malika la Maize]

Kind of hard to sell that while Trump runs around saying “this is a great opportunity to cut government programs especially Democrats ones!” If Democrats are holding the hostages Trump is going on about here’s a great opportunity to kill those hostages.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How so?

[Malika la Maize]

How I said?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? If Trump uses the shutdown to kill certain programs, that makes him responsible for killing those programs, but not for the broader shutdown.

[Malika la Maize]

You may be confusing the term cause and blame.

Like I said, if a group with hostages tell the police “we want pizzas for us and the hostages or no deal!” and the police say “lol, fuck those hostages, I hope they starve and hopefully we’ll get to shoot them soon” don’t be amazed if people blame the hostage’s position on the latter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In addition to the former?

[CountmontyC]

Or the hostage takers could release the hostages? You see the people responsible for the hostages being hungry are the hostage takers. The hostages would be at home safe and well fed except for the fact that they are being held hostage. The entire responsibility is on the hostage takers.

[Bob from Ohio]

" here’s a great opportunity to kill those hostages"

Why are the Dems in the Senate letting him do it?

[Malika la Maize]

What an interesting theory of culpability, it’s not the person actively and intentionally acting to harm that is to blame, it’s the people who could stop him but don’t!

[Bob from Ohio]

"people who could stop him but don’t"

Oh, they can easily save hostages but willfully don't. Nice people!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Malika thinks it's the R's fault that the D's are committing rape because the R's haven't cut the D's peckers off.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie gonna cry about the starving Chill'in???
Is that how your people say it? "Chill'in"??

[bernard11]

All the GOP has to do is extend the ACA subsidies. End of shutdown.

The Democrats are filibustering the CR, and the GOP is, effectively, filibustering the subsidies - not allowing them to pass and end the shutdown.

Dishonest MAGA shit.

[Armchair]

"All the GOP has to do is extend the ACA subsidies. "

So, you favor giving people making $200,000 a year or $300,000 a year additional government money?

[Frank Drackman]

200-300K isn't that much anymore.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

All the GOP has to do is extend the ACA subsidies.

So the blame lies not with those taking hostages, it lies with those not caving in to the hostage-takers' demands.

And somehow that makes sense in that otherwise empty cavern you call a skull.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - Check you facts first. you are wrong on every fact in your post, while being a prick being wrong

[bernard11]

You mean Trump is not blocking the SNAP benefits?

You mean the GOP is telling the truth about the subsidies going to illegal immigrants?

As for being a prick, well, since you're wrong about 98% of the time, you calling me one doesn't bother me.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 1 second ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"You mean Trump is not blocking the SNAP benefits?"
My response - No you are wrong ! its congress and the dems voting against ending the shutdown

Bernard comment "You mean the GOP is telling the truth about the subsidies going to illegal immigrants? "
My response - Again you are wrong on two points - That comment was not in your original post - so responding with a non relevant fact remain non relevant. B - Yes subsidies going to illegal immigrants is one of the issues the democrats are demanding which the GOP is not compromising on.

As for being a prick, well, since you're wrong about 98% of the time, you calling me one doesn't bother me.

It should bother you since I am correct on most every substantive issue while at the same time you were not only wrong on your two points in the first post, you doubled down on being wrong with 4 points in your follow up post.
Along with continuing to be a prick when wrong.

[David Nieporent]

es subsidies going to illegal immigrants is one of the issues the democrats are demanding

It is not.

[Armchair]

"You mean Trump is not blocking the SNAP benefits?"

Trump is not blocking SNAP benefits.

SNAP is a government program, one which requires annual appropriations from Congress. That appropriation package has not been passed by Congress. Trump has not vetoed any such appropriation bill, because he has not received any such appropriation bill.

A CR which would fund SNAP has been passed by the House. The Senate has tried to pass that CR 12 times. Every time, the Democrats in the Senate have filibustered such a CR.

Trump is not blocking SNAP. He hasn't received any such allocations bill to fund SNAP.

[bernard11]

He has a contingency fund dedicated to SNAP and won't use it.

[Armchair]

That fund doesn't cover the shortfall. Know what would? Passing the CR.

But you never answered the question. "Do you favor giving people making $200,000 a year or $300,000 a year additional government money?"

[bernard11]

Stupid question.

I favor helping people afford health insurance. If there are a few undeserving types then so be it.

Do you favor letting people go hungry, or without health coverage, because a small percentage of those getting help don't need it?

How many households making $300K/yr get subsidies?

[Armchair]

"If there are a few undeserving types then so be it."

And you're willing to filibuster and shut down food stamps for everyone to help those undeserving types?

[bernard11]

And you're willing to not pass a bill that would help all those who need food stamps and help with health insurance. for fear that somewhere, an 8-person household with $300K in income might get a few hundred dollars.

[Armchair]

Bernard,

Not an 8-person household. A 2-4 person household. The 400% FPL limit was scrapped by Biden's ACA. You're deliberately avoiding what this expansion actually did.

[bernard11]

And the GOP is willing shut down food stamps for everyone to avoid an occasional undeserving type getting help?

Further, it is willing to revert to the previous ACA subsidies, which will be inadequate for a great many people who actually need them, in order to do that.

Besides, the GOP argument is BS. They control the House and the Senate. If the subsidies are too generous to rich people then let them change that, instead of using that as an excuse to cut the subsidies to everyone.

It is you who are distorting and leaving out facts. They don't just want to stop what they perceive as abuses. They want to cut the whole program. They are full of shit.

Oh, and the SNAP reserve, which Trump could release tonight, is $5.5 billion, which will keep things going for a few weeks. But what does he care if some people neither you nor he give a shit about go hungry.

[CountmontyC]

If every Republican changed their vote on the CR it would still fail. If 1 in 4 Democrats changed their vote the CR would pass. It is the Democrstd who are blocking a clean CR (btw Schumer supported a clean CR back in March).

[Malika la Maize]

Back before the GOP’s rescission thing, huh?

[CountmontyC]

True or false: When Republicans tried to use government shutdowns by opposing clean CRs in the past Democtats called that hostage taking.

[David Nieporent]

If every Republican changed their vote on the CR it would still fail.

What if they changed their vote so that it contained things the Democrats were willing to accept?

[CountmontyC]

So give into the hostage takers demands?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, discussion and compromise. It's called being an adult and getting things done. They need Democratic votes, they make a deal with Democrats. Do you really not understand that?

[CountmontyC]

When the Republicans used the same strategy of allowing the government to shut down to try to make policy changes the Democrats called Republicans hostage takers ( some reportedly called Republicans terrorists) for doing so. The Democrats said that there would be no negotiations until a clean CR was passed. Oh and btw the Republicans at least had a majority in the House.

[Sarcastr0]

And how did that shutdown end? Who came to the table that time?

Do you even remember or care"

[Josh R]

I'm a clean CR person. So no, the government shouldn't be shutdown over ACA subsidies and the Democrats ought to own the shutdown if that were the sole purpose (noting the PR battle appears to be going the Democrats' way by a small margin).

However a clean CR would exclude impoundments and rescissions for the duration of the CR. Trump and Congress cannot be trusted to agree to a CR in good faith.

[wvattorney13]

This is so childish. You know that the Dems need Republican votes so why don't they discuss and compromise? In fact they don't need to compromise anything, just have the status quo ante.

The Dems are the ones in the minority who are obstructing the process. And I think you know this.

[Magister]

Democrats have sought to talk with their counterparts. Trump only wants to troll, and Republican senators won't cross him.

[shawn_dude]

The Republicans don't want anything in the CR that would prevent them from going back on their promises and they have a history of doing just that so Democrats are holding out.

Keep in mind that this is what the filibuster is meant for--as a tool to drive compromise. The Republicans can sweep that away with a single vote and move forward without a single vote from any Democrat. The only thing stopping the Republicans from doing that is their desire to keep the filibuster, presumably in order to use it in circumstances they favor when they're next in the minority. So, as they are the party with all the power, they can move forward with the CR whenever they want; it's obvious they're finding this shutdown acceptable or useful and don't intend on ending it.

[Sarcastr0]

Who are the hostages here?
The demands are to...not defund current health insurance subsidies.

I think this analogy got away from you.

[CountmontyC]

Whose vote is keeping the government shutdown? It's thee Democrats that is who. The health insurance subsidies in question were sold as temporary subsidies that were needed because of Covid. Covid is over and the temporary subsidies are over.

[Sarcastr0]

Neato new goalposts. Got tired of your hostage shtick so soon?

It's great you think the subsidies should be ended. Turns out, we live in a Republic and your take isn't the only one that matters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The demands are to...not defund current health insurance subsidies."

Great News! No one is defunding anything. The funding expires all by itself. Glad we cleared that up.

[Magister]

Sunsetting and then not extending is a favored trick for defunding. At the 2023 State of the Union address, Republicans in Congress ran away from their plans to do just that with Social Security and Medicare.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sunsetting and then not extending is a favored trick for defunding.

So allowing an intentionally temporary program to expire as it was intended (which is why it contained a sunset provision) is a "trick"?

[Magister]

The trick is dishonestly quibbling that it wasn't defunded. Republicans only put sunsets on their tax breaks (as under George W. Bush) because they have to limit the cost to get it passed.

[shawn_dude]

Imagine the Republican talking points if Kamala had won and opted not to extend the Trump tax cuts. Do you think Republicans would have said:

a) This was temporary program and the Democrats have opted to let it automatically expire. OR
b) The Democrats are raising taxes on people!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The trick is dishonestly quibbling that it wasn't defunded.

The hypocrisy of you accusing anyone else of dishonesty is astounding. It wasn't "defunded". As already pointed out...but appears to have flown a mile over your empty head...the credits that are expiring were INTENTIONALLY TEMPORARY because they were a response to a TEMPORARY condition (the Covid pandemic). Furthermore, they were enacted with that sunset provision in 2021, when Biden was in the White House, the House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats and the Senate was split 50-50 between Rs and the Ds (including 2 Is who caucused with the Ds), with Harris breaking any ties...so effectively D control.

[Magister]

I wrote generally of the trick used so often. But big feelings, WuzYoungOnceToo.

[Armchair]

So, you support giving people making $300,000 a year health insurance subsidies from the government?

In fact, do you support that so much, that you're willing to demand it? Even if people who are poor don't get food stamps?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You seemed a lot less concerned about the poor when the "big, beautiful bill" was being passed. More bad faith from you, what a surprise.

[Armchair]

Did I?

In addition to stopping a $1,700 tax increase later this year, the average American family of four making less than $100,000 receives an additional $600 in tax cuts as compared to today.
Working families making between $15,000 and $30,000 will have their taxes cut by 21% –
the largest of any income group.

As a result of The One, Big, Beautiful Bill, the top 1% will pay MORE in federal taxes than they did before TCJA – over 40% of all federal taxes.
As a result of The One, Big, Beautiful Bill, the top 10% of earners’ of federal taxes will INCREASE by 6.6% compared to what they paid before TCJA.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/theonebigbeautifulbill/fact-sheets/the-one-big-beautiful-bill-delivers-biggest-wins-for-the-working-class/#:~:text=The%20One%2C%20Big%2C%20Beautiful%20Bill%20will%20cut%20taxes%20for%20Americans,family%20of%20four%20by%20%2410%2C900.

[shawn_dude]

You mean the tax increased created by Trump's temporary tax cuts in his first term? So you're saying it's a good thing that Congress acted to extend a temporary program for the benefit of Americans?

Why doesn't that extend to their health coverage also?

[wvattorney13]

One man's subsidy is another man's "tax credit."

Here's the issue with that. The whole system will come crashing down without the subsidies. People making $300k/year know what a bad deal it is without a subsidy. They won't buy it or they will buy catastrophic plans. The only people paying the money will be those already sick and needing it. Costs will massively go up again next year. Rinse and repeat.

I am in the category where my subsidy will be cut off. I will be buying a catastrophic plan if nothing changes. I welcome any money the government gives me. Nonetheless it is horrible policy to prop up this unsustainable ACA model.

[Armchair]

"The whole system will come crashing down without the subsidies."

Worked fine before the COVID subsidies. There aren't "that" many people making $300K a year, such that a death spiral happens. If you want to buy a catastrophic plan, that's your choice.

[wvattorney13]

With the prior limits imposed a two person household would be cut off from subsidies with a total income of $84,600.

That is better than a lot of people, but not exactly swimming in money.

[shawn_dude]

A lot of retirees who retire before 65 would be excluded from subsidies but have to pay $2K/month for health coverage. If they live on the West or most parts of the East coast, that would drive them into poverty.

[bernard11]

Who are these $300K/yr people? How many are there?

You'd need a 12-person household for that to be four times the poverty level.

[Armchair]

Bernard....

Perhaps you missed this. As part of Biden's ACA expansion due to COVID...the income limits for subsidies were eliminated. That's what the Democrats are trying to extend. The complete lack of any income limits for ACA subsidies. That's what they've demanded to list the filibuster.

[bernard11]

Armchair,

The subsidies kick in when the premium for a benchmark plan exceeds 8.5% of your income. At $300K that's $25,500/yr. Few benchmarks exceed that, not to mention that an awful lot of people with that income have pretty good employer coverage.

And speaking of missing things. The enhanced subsidies don't just let your millionaires get subsidies. They increase the subsidies for low and middle-income families and individuals. If they expire a lot of these people will face ruinous costs.

So if you want to discuss these subsidies honestly, look at the entire situation, not just the part you can portray as a giveaway to rich people.

[Absaroka]

As an aside, note that that is all income based. Income != net worth. If you stop working at 60 and live on after-tax savings while deferring a pension or social security, you can live a comfortable life with a negligible AGI. That can mean ACA subsidies.

The missus and I weren't comfortable with that - we paid $1500 month for unsubsidized insurance until medicare at 65. But judging from the comments at bogleheads (a retirement investing forum) lots of early retirees arrange their AGI to maximize the ACA subsidies.

I doubt it's a large percentage of people getting subsidies, but discussions of the nuances are common there.

[wvattorney13]

Now that you know that your party is attempting to give subsidies to millionaires, does that change your opinion about whether your support their proposal? And if you support it, do you support it enough to filibuster and shut down the government?

[Michael Resanovic]

Wrong. Keeping the unconstitutional filibuster is their choice.

[Armchair]

Really think about it.

The House has passed a CR that keeps SNAP funded.

The Senate has tried 12 times to pass a CR that keeps SNAP funded. Every time, the Democrats have filibustered that. The Democrats have demanded as a condition of that funding, people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year get more money from the government.

Think how furious you would be if the GOP was filibustering a bill that kept SNAP from being funded, and the GOP demanded massive tax cuts for the rich as a condition to fund SNAP.

That's the situation, but in reverse. The Democrats are demanding billions of dollars for rich Americans as a condition to keep SNAP funded.

That's the truth. You're on the wrong side.

[wvattorney13]

Completely disingenuous. It is really 1984 stuff. The Dems vote no on a clean continuing resolution which would fund food stamps but it is the Republicans fault that they are not in place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts sent the following to every SNAP recipient:

President Trump is currently choosing to not issue November SNAP benefits that help you and many families put food on the table. You also may have your benefits cut starting in November because of changes Congressional Republicans and President Trump enacted in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Learn more and check back for updates at mass.gov/dta

The question I have is how will the "work" requirement for people in their 60s work? Most that aren't working are unemployable, many are disabled and not people you want working around food.

[Poxigah146]

Most of these people have been "disabled" for decades. They're not unemployable. They're just lazy.

[santamonica811]

Um, dipshit, do you understand how disabilities work, don't you? If someone is paralyzed (for example) at age 35; are you really surprised that they are still paralyzed--and unemployable--at age 55? If you are surprised by this; you're literally the only person at VC who is. I guess you resent that "lazy" paralyzed disabled person getting a free govt handout for decades. Not me. And not most people . . . thank God.

[Poxigah146]

You're a fucking moron. Do you know how few of these people are paralyzed? Most of them are just lazy. I've worked with many people who are "disabled." You wouldn't know unless they told you.

[santamonica811]

You're an angry 14 year old, typing feverishly from his parents' basement. I doubt you have yet had ANY experience working yourself, let alone any experience working with disabled people.

[wvattorney13]

You mean "in their 60s" as in 60 and 61 year olds? The same age that you and I will have to work before we are eligible for diminished social security benefits?

[Magister]

If you're less than 60 now, you won't get Social Security retirement benefits until age 67.

[hobie]

So far in 2025 MAGA (that's you too Armchair) have:

Eviscerated SNAP
Killed USAID
Killed federal funding to food banks
Ended automatic child enrollment in SNAP and school lunches
Removed 24,000 schools from eligibility for free lunches for poor children (CEP)
Eliminated USDA farm-to-school assistance program

Also Armchair above: "SNAP benefits for millions of poor Americans are about to run out. The GOP is trying to pass a continuing resolution to get people fed"

[grb]

Armchair : "Those "temporary" subsidies for people making $300,000 a year to get health insurance are expiring. But Democrats don't like that."

And those "temporary" tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires also expired, but the GOP rushed to renew them. But the healthcare subsides aren't for billionaires and millionaires, they're for people Republicans view with disdain and contempt.

Not that many mind. For a person like - say - Armchair, it doesn't matter Trump sees him as a dupish mark. As long as his goons rough-up people with brown skin in the streets, Armchair is entertained. That what Trump is to him. A corrupt sleazy liar with half a functioning brain to be sure (Trump). A president who uses cartoon stunts as cover for his incompetence and indiscipline. A person brazenly selling presidential favor for graft. Someone who sees the Constitution as his own personal roll of toilet paper. But entertaining to Armchair. That's what he wants in a president.

PS : Trump has the authority and funds to continue SNAP payments. He used both in his first term during that farcical shutdown. He's just decided not to do so now. Maybe you should own that decision rather that lie about it.

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2025/10/no-snap-benefits-to-be-issued-nov-1-usda-says/

[hobie]

It's why a lot of pundits and politicians are now starting to frame the shift in America not being, necessarily, a political fight between left and right, but rather a takeover of America by the tech titans. And you know what...I believe it.

[Poxigah146]

What tax cuts for billionaires? Please be specific. The only tax cut I know of was for people making ordinary income of >$400k.

[Armchair]

whatboutism.

[ThePublius]

SNAP should end. I know a lot about SNAP benefits since I have a close acquaintance who receives SNAP aid, and doesn't really need it. As a result, I pay attention to reports on SNAP abuse, and I pay attention to EBT users when I shop. I have, more than once, followed an EBT user towing multiple trolleys of goods to the parking lot and watched them load their booty into a luxury SUV. I know, via my acquaintance, that people have multiple EBT cards via multiple identities, and that people trade EBT cards for cash and drugs. There's a huge underground economy in SNAP benefits.

SNAP has become a lifetime income source for many people. Yes, indeed, why are 1/8th of the population on SNAP? Because it's free money!

[Malika la Maize]

Good job Javert!

More importantly, have you ever stopped to think your amazing investigative findings might not be as generalizable as you think? I mean, Jeebus maybe at least say it should be strictly reformed based on your very low sample.

[hobie]

Inspector Publius has followed a welfare queen in his affluent neighborhood and has cracked the case!

[ThePublius]

My affluent neighborhood? Fully 1/2 of the households in my city depend on SNAP benefits. Hardly affluent.

[Malika la Maize]

But as your investigations have proven beyond a shadow of any doubt they are all affluent cheats!

[ThePublius]

Yes, but then I've heard testimony from many others of similar findings. You think this SNAP thing is all on the up-and-up? Fool.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a network of Javerts! His n has been multiplied by three or four leading to a totally reasonable generalization about millions!

Stop digging.

[David Nieporent]

In what forum did these people testify?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you run the plate on said SUV?

It is not uncommon to borrow a vehicle for a monthly trip to the store, which would mean multiple carriages because you are stocking up.

I compare this to the businesses who buy a corporate jet, not because they need one, but for the tax deduction.

[ThePublius]

Did I run the plate? Are you kidding? D0 you think I'm a cop or something?

It didn't look like a rented or borrowed Escalade, too much person shit in it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, I had a Section 8 client who drove a Jag -- it was owned by someone else in the church. The client had no income even though he drove trailer-truck loads of sweet corn to canneries in the midwest because he was donating his labor to the church.

Cambodian church so no one dared pursue it.

[bernard11]

I compare this to the businesses who buy a corporate jet, not because they need one, but for the tax deduction.

Huh? Since the deduction doesn't save more than the jet costs that wouldn't have made much sense. Of course the GOP, in its abiding concern for the poor, and worries about the deficit, did make those deductions more generous.

[David Nieporent]

The caliber of evidence is shrinking by the moment. Apparently by the mere dint of being on food stamps, ThePublius's friend is an expert on "a huge underground economy" involving food stamps.

[Armchair]

Simply because there is fraud, it does not mean the program should end.

Reform? Yes. End...no. Ending it suddenly would cause widespread hunger. The answer to fraud is reform. There's fraud at the DoD as well. But you wouldn't suggest just getting rid of the military.

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair,

The world has not ended, despite the 'Great Shutdown'. Americans are finding out what is essential federal government, and what is not. It is a wonderful lesson in applied civics. Now...Would the world end if the fed govt was shut down until next April? Probably not. The immediate DC metro area would be impacted (lots of non-essential federal bureaucrats), but the rest of America, not so much. If a CR cannot be passed, so be it.

The States can fill in any gaps. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Armchair]

"Now...Would the world end if the fed govt was shut down until next April?"

I think you might be surprised. I'll highlight one situation...paying the troops. Active duty US forces are paid twice a month, with a delay. So, on ~ October 15th, they got paid for their work done for Sept 16-30th. Upcoming is the first pay period they would miss. Trump is trying to shift some funds around, but that's a one time thing.

Now, let's take your situation but not pay the troops till April. They still have to be in service. But they aren't getting paid. They've still got bills...mortgages, car payments, electric bills, heating bills. Those don't get made. Houses get foreclosed on. Trucks repossessed. Electricity shut off. Heat shut off.

They also have families. But...the troops aren't getting any pay. Families can't get food. And with food stamps being shut down, they also can't get food assistance, and start getting hungry. And their families have no heat, no electricity, and maybe no place to live.

So, what happens when you have a bunch of angry, hungry, unpaid troops with starving families...but all of them have firearms that still work?

[Commenter_XY]

Arm, the troops get paid. So does Grandma and Grandpa with their SSA checks. The 'losers' are non-essential fed bureaucrats.

That is not a great loss.

[Armchair]

Commenter...

Troops don't get paid without Congress appropriating money to their pay. That's how the whole "appropriating" bit in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 works.

SSA is self funding. Troops getting paid...is not. They need appropriations bills.

Still think it's a good idea to "shut down" the government for 6 months and not pay the troops for that time?

[Martinned]

I know everyone here would rather talk about anything other than the US, so let me note that today is election day in the Netherlands. It was my first time voting in person in a Dutch election since 2010. I celebrated by going to the parliament building to vote. As a result, I ended up waiting in line for 15 minutes, while the three polling stations I walked by on the way didn't have any queues at all. But I knew that was going to happen. And yes, I needed to show my passport (or other government-issued photo ID) to vote. That is normal.

[Commenter_XY]

Go Geert! 😛

[Martinned]

He went from 37 to 26 seats, with 99.7% of votes counted.

Wilders' PVV is marginally ahead of the centre-left D66, they will both have 26 seats (out of 150).

There are a couple of things going on. The common denominator is that there was actually very little switching between the three main blocks (althought he borders between those blocks aren't necessarily clear):

- On the far right, in 2023 voters voted strategically for Wilders, to make him bigger in the coalition. Now they didn't have any reason to do that, because it was clear very few other parties wanted to work with him anyway. So the voters of the far right fragmented again. Part of that group went to JA21, the most centrist of the far right, who were not excluded from a possible coalition. They got 9 seats, up from 1.

- On the left, voters voted strategically for D66, to make Jetten big. This is a weird kind of dynamic, where a group of voters try to anticipate each other's strategic vote. They could have just as easily coalesced around the Labour/Green coalition. Instead, Labour/Green fell from 25 to 20, and D66 went up from 9 to 26.

- On the centre-right, the conservative NSC went from 0 to 20 seats back to zero in the space of two elections. Their voters went (back) to the CDA, and to D66.

The net effect of those three things is that D66 is very lucky, and will end up with their leader as prime minister. But, particularly if you compare it to 2021, the changes are not dramatic. The far right certainly isn't vanquished. Despite what the papers say, there is no return of the centre.

The most important fact for the next step is that a coalition of D66/CDA/VVD/JA21 will only have 75 seats, i.e. not enough. This means that there's basically only one sensible coalition, which is the one I already mentioned here before: D66 (centre-left liberal), CDA (christian-democrats), VVD (centre-right liberal), and Green/Labour. But this will take a few months to figure out, because the VVD were very clear in the campaign that they wouldn't work with the Green/Labour, and Green/Labour just lost its leader and will have to figure out where they want to go from here.

[Martinned]

I haven't checked, but I suspect that 16.7% of the vote is a new record low for the vote share of the largest party in an election. Hence my frequent point that in a system like this talking about a party "winning" the election is silly. Describing a party with 16.7% of the vote as the winner is stretching that word well beyond its sensible meaning.

[Martinned]

Some English-language reporting:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/29/exit-poll-suggests-progressive-d66-party-will-become-largest-in-dutch-parliament

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/10/d66-and-pvv-are-now-neck-and-neck-with-most-votes-counted/

[Sarcastr0]

︀︀According to the Ipsos I&O exit poll, the social-liberal Democrats 66 party led by Rob Jetten emerges as the largest party, winning 27 seats out of 150.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"And yes, I needed to show my passport (or other government-issued photo ID) to vote. That is normal."

No, it's racist and fascist. /sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Comer: "We are investigating the Dems for bad thing!"

MAGA suckers: "OMG thing is bad!"

Trump: "Thing bad! I'ma do a quickly dismissed lawsuit or maybe just yell online."

MAGA suckers: "Thing is now confirmed, how dare everyone defend thing!"

...1 month later, Comer: "We are investigating Dems for different bad thing!"

MAGA suckers: "OMG..."

And so on.
-------
These sinister charges never transition into anything substantive. But that doesn't stop the MAGA suckers from adding to their litany of grievances.

[DDHarriman]

That comedy skit probably sounded better in your head.

[Krayt]

When Trump claimed the election was stolen, I didn't think so, but also thought everybody gets his day in court. Let him prove it.

What happened? At least one judge called their bluff, swore in whoever they wanted, and asked, ok, where's the evidence? What happened?

"Umm..."

"Remember, you're under oath."

"Mmmmm...not much."

Just the usual.

[Armchair]

Antifa "doesn't exist they say. And Yet...

"As Democratic leaders like Rep. Dan Goldman (D, N.Y.) insist that Antifa does not exist as a group, two Antifa groups — Front Range Antifa and Colorado Springs Antifa — put out a hit list poster on a University of Colorado sophomore and leader in Turning Point USA. He was promptly attacked by a person in the signature Antifa black outfit on roller blades who used a hockey stick to mete out the punishment."

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/29/university-of-colorado-tpusa-student-leader-attacked-after-antifa-posted-hit-list/

This sounds like domestic terrorism.

[SRG2]

Antifa does not exist as an organisation any more than "socialism" or "conservatism" exist as organisations. And like these other two, people can nonetheless act in support of its ideas.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because it's not true?

[Michael P]

When was the last time "socialism" or "conservatism" posted a flier calling someone a neo-Nazi threat?

[Malika la Maize]

If a group identifying as socialist calls someone a Nazi-threat is that on socialism?

[wvattorney13]

So if people on the right are claiming X and you say "Conservatism is dangerous because it claims X" should I act surprised and say that there is no such group?

Should I feign not understanding what you are talking about by making the mundane point that there is no group called "Conservatism, LLC" registered in my state?

[Malika la Maize]

So does Antifa exist as a group or these two?

Turley will say anything for attention, btw

[hobie]

Just think of ANTIFA as the Left's Q-Anon, Armchair. Everyone knows we're all secret members. Everyone is sure it is an organization. Or maybe it's just another conspiracy theory from the fever swamps.

The sad part is, from objective observation, I can tell that both are a joke....but you can't.

[David Nieporent]

Antifa does not exist. But this is how propaganda works. Turley blogs that "two Antifa groups … put out a hit list poster." To support that claim, his post cites/links to nothing but a Post Millennial "article." To support its "reporting," the Post Millennial "article" cites/links to nothing but… an Andy Ngo tweet. The level of anti-journalism here is stunning.

Now, while there's enough out there to make it likely the flyer — which is not, in fact, a "hit list poster"¹ — exists and was posted online, the "evidence" that Antifa exists is… nothing more than that the flyer exists. Yes, someone created and posted it. So that person exists. There's still no evidence of any actual organization with actual leaders and members and such.
​​
​​
¹Ngo called it that, so the non-journalists whose contribution involves simply repeating what Ngo said also called it that. But the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, and this "hit list" neither involved a hit nor a list.

[Michael P]

The victim was literally beaten with a hockey stick by a masked thug, and a DaMN liar says it didn't involve a hit.

[Malika la Maize]

Did the flyer call for violence against those listed?

[David Nieporent]

The victim — Nathaniel Ellis — was not "literally beaten with a hockey stick," which is why he suffered no injuries and did not require any medical treatment. Since police have released a photo of a guy with a hockey stick, I will tentatively accept that there was a brief interaction between Ellis and someone else. (Though there's certainly the possibility that this was a Jussie Smollet situation.) The flyer did not call for anyone to assault Ellis, and there's no evidence at this time that the hockey stick guy ever even saw the flyer.

[Armchair]

" which is why he suffered no injuries and did not require any medical treatment"

What's actually reported is that he suffered no "serious" injuries and "declined" medical treatment. Not that he wasn't injured at all. And he claims he was assaulted with the hockey stick. If he managed to block or defend himself adequately, it's very possible no "serious" injuries would result. But that doesn't mean "no" injuries would occur.

When you lie about these things, it makes people wonder.

[wvattorney13]

"The flyer did not call for anyone to assault Ellis"

Then riddle me this. What was the purpose of the flyer naming him? Just so you know there is this guy Ellis on campus who is a Nazi? Just for your information. File it away and do nothing with it.

[Michael P]

It's a deniable -- but obvious -- call for violence, so of course the resident denialists are going to deny it.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P finds dog whistles everywhere lately.

[Martinned]

Not everywhere...

[Joe_dallas]

Officially antifa doesnt exist as a legal organization so that is correct - However, , Keith ellison says it exists an loosely affiliated organization

[Malika la Maize]

You usually stand on KE?

[Absaroka]

Officially the mafia doesn't exist, either.

Some of the outlaw motorcycle gangs file as corporations, elect officers, keep minutes, register trademarks, yadda yadda. So they pretty clearly exist. But the mafia don't do any of that, and assert they are just legit businessmen, and we still call them organized crime. Others - Crips, Bloods - seem less organized/more fractured than the mafia, but also aren't just random individuals in the sense that most burglars are.

I'll let other folks argue where on the spectrum antifa lies, but that it doesn't exist because it isn't a formal organization with bylaws and whatever is pretty weak.

[Sarcastr0]

that it doesn't exist because it isn't a formal organization with bylaws and whatever is pretty weak.

Is anyone arguing this?

[Absaroka]

DMN above says "Antifa does not exist". I thought that was your position as well... perhaps you could clarify?

[Sarcastr0]

When he goes into details, it's about the lack of established facts at all going in any direction about Antifa beyond a term on a flier.

He's not at all relying on Antifa's lack of bylaws and other formalities.

I do think continuum does capture at least one dimension of the nigh infinite gradations humans come up with between meme and venerable institution.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
"When he goes into details, it's about the lack of established facts at all going in any direction about Antifa beyond a term on a flier.
He's not at all relying on Antifa's lack of bylaws and other formalities."

No its his usual deflection - quite common deflection - Antifa is a legal entity - therefore it doesnt exist!
The use of a commonly used generic term instead of the correct legal or technical term means the entire statement is incorrect - yet rarely addresses the substance.

[David Nieporent]

My position is that antifa doesn't exist not merely because it isn't a formal organization with bylaws, but because it's not any sort of organization at all. There are no members. There are no leaders. No rules, no assets, nothing. It's just random, varying people doing spontaneous things in an uncoordinated fashion.

[Absaroka]

How do you know that? That's what the mafia says about the mafia, after all. Sure, some Italians commit crimes, but an organization? That's ethnic slander!

[Michael P]

There was no international communist conspiracy, it was just a bunch of people doing random things that Comintern (and later Cominform) thought would be good ideas.

There was no 9/11 conspiracy, it was just a bunch of people who decided to do something.

DaMN liars should be ashamed of themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

Note the evidence levels of your 2 examples, versus Antifa.

You're so cocksure you're disproving your own thesis without realizing it.

[David Nieporent]

The Roman Catholic Church does exist. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. There's no double standard in those two statements; the facts are different.

[Absaroka]

Whoa there, I have a certificate of ordination as a Pastafarian minister.

Enlightened countries such as New Zealand recognize it, while some backward countries like the U.S. and the Netherlands are still making second class citizens of Pastafarians.

[Armchair]

It's a particularly idiotic statement by David.

It's like saying "Neo-Nazis don't exist, because there's no Neo-Nazi organization".

[Martinned]

No, it's like saying "Neo-Nazi doesn't exist, because there's no Neo-Nazi organisation".

I understand that you like to elide the difference between a word that describes a group of people based on a shared belief and a word that refers to an organisation, but that distinction is exactly the point here, as you well know.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling neo-Nazis a domestic terror organization makes no sense.
So, too Antifa.

Once again your thesis has wandered to the point you've ended up arguing against the MAGA line.

[Joe_dallas]

Several including DN until it was pointed out that the lack of a formal formation document filed with the respective state secretary of state doesnt make a loosely organize group to vaporize into non existence.

Do they have official organization meetings - No, but those gatherings at protests/riots etc, fit into the broad definition of what would be called meetings or gatherings

[David Nieporent]

As usual, bookkeeper_joe lies; I have never said one word about "the lack of a formal formation document filed with the respective state secretary of state."

[Joe_dallas]

DN maybe not your exact words - though the carry the substance of your denial of the reality
Absaroka explained your absurd distortions, Others had linked Keith Ellison with the playbook of your non existent organization.

[David Nieporent]

You are deeply deeply stupid. An academic historian published a book about the history of the antifascist movement, called "The Anti-Fascist Handbook". Keith Ellison posted a joking tweet about that book, mocking Trump's credulity. And this sequence someone fooled bookkeeper_joe into thinking that this was some sort of employee handbook issued by Antifa.

[loki13]

...wut? I blocked him a while back because of his habitual ... let's call them misstatements (or should I say his credulous repeating of claims he found from bad sources that he kept flogging despite people repeatedly letting him know that they weren't true).

But ... that level of gullibility? That's impressive! I have a friend, Scam Likely, who should call him and tell him about a sweet deal to buy some bitcoins made from a bridge in Brooklyn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Mafia didn't officially exist until all of the leaders decided to have a meeting in Upstate New York which the local PD busted.
Then it did exist...

[Absaroka]

Geez, Ed, Joe the Barber was just having some friends over. The missus and I are doing just that twice just this week, in fact. I was just baking a cake for one of them. Nothing to see here.

[Armchair]

Antifa exists the same way "Communists" and "Neo-Nazis" exist.

[not guilty]

Antifa exists to the same extent as Emmanuel Goldstein and The Brotherhood existed in Oceania -- a target for the government to gin up hatred.

[Armchair]

More like the same way "Islamic terrorists" exist. There may not be "one" group named Islamic terrorists. But there are a lot of smaller groups that adhere to the ideology.

[Riva]

While they are now scurrying into the shadows, there were, and are a few are still left (no pun intended), Antifa related websites. They're all .org. What do you think "org" means NG?

[not guilty]

Well, duh!

https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0032624

[Riva]

And why do you suppose these loosely affiliated, decentralized cells or "not organization" organizations that promote and further political violence are running to the shadows? Maybe because the money trails are finally being followed. Funny huh?

[not guilty]

Supporting facts, Riva?

[Riva]

You wouldn't know a fact if it swam up and bit you on the ass, sealion.

[not guilty]

IOW, you got bupkis.

[David Nieporent]

What do you think "org" means NG?

It is short for organization, but it doesn't "mean" anything; anyone can register a domain name under that TLD. Unlike .edu, which has an actual thorough vetting process to ensure that only established educational institutions can get such a name, .org is an open TLD. I can register InternationalNieporentInstitute.org with about 5 minutes and a credit card, but that doesn't mean that there is such an institution.

[Armchair]

The horror of Fentanyl.

Fentanyl has been around since the 1960's. But only recently has it become a major cause of death in the United States. As recently as 2012, there were less than 3000 deaths due to fentanyl overdose in the US. However, since then, it's skyrocketed...to more than 70,000 deaths due to just fentanyl OD per year. It is stunning. It's like killing 1 out of every 10 residents in Washington DC. Then doing it again the next year. Then again.

To really put this in context, take every car accident death in the entire United States annually. It's ~40,000. The annual deaths due to fentanyl are almost double that. And it basically DIDN'T EXIST 15 years ago.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/895945/fentanyl-overdose-deaths-us/

[Martinned]

Wow. It must really suck to be poor in the United States, if fentanyl sounds like a viable way out.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2015/press-release/

[ducksalad]

Not going to try and spin away 70,000 deaths a year. It's a bad thing.

But it is worth noting that it during the same time period, there have been decreases in both heroin and alcohol deaths. So part (but not all) of what we're seeing is people with deadly habits switching their drug of choice.

Going back to our exchange from a few days back, I don't think bombing a few or even a lot of northbound boats is going to solve the problem. There are levels of "alternatives"

Find and sink half the boats, they just send twice as many boats.
Sink all the boats, it gets in via land or regular mail.
Keep it from getting in, it gets made domestically.
Keep it from being made domestically, they go back to heroin or alcohol.

-----
A few general observations: if you've ever dealt with a suicidally depressed person, you quickly figure out it is impossible to eliminate every means by which they could do the deed, unless they are literally in physical restraints 24/7.

Second, it's no secret that opioid usage and death rates vary widely from region to region within the US. Internal transport of drugs is trivially easy so this difference clearly has NOTHING to do with availability.

It also varies widely among demographic groups. Again, that can't be explained by availability.

The problem is cultural - some groups of people want to use this stuff. The solution, if there is one, needs to be mainly about that.

[Armchair]

"But it is worth noting that it during the same time period, there have been decreases in both heroin and alcohol deaths."

Not really. Here are the Heroin stats. In 2011, there were just about 4000 OD deaths due to Heroin. By 2016, it was up to 16,000. By 2019, it dropped slightly to 14,000.

The sad truth is, it's just a small percentage of the fentanyl OD deaths. And in 2011, heroin OD deaths were also much lower. They also went up more than 5 fold (but not the 20-fold increase fentanyl went up).

Alcohol is a bit more complicated, as it is typically reported as "alcohol-induced" deaths. But keeping it just to alcohol poisoning results in 2200 deaths per year. A bare fraction of the fentanyl issues.

https://drugabusestatistics.org/heroin-statistics/

[myself]

I seems hard to square Trump's supposed claims that the tariffs are for a national emergency with a 10% tariff for quoting Ronald Regan.

[SRG2]

Ah, but Dear Leader has deemed it so.

[grb]

myself : " ...a national emergency with a 10% tariff for quoting Ronald Regan."

You know what's hilarious, disgusting, and pathetic all at once? Reagan was hardcore free trade and anti-protectionist. You might as well claim he was pro-communist to say otherwise. And the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute has one job - only one job - to advance the legacy and principles of RWR. Those are literal words taken from their mission statement.

But when Trump needed a lie, they rushed to betray a core principle of the man they supposedly champion. Because today's Right is the party of lying. If an average rightie doesn't get his daily lie fix, his eyes go glassy, his skin blanches to pale white, and sweat pours from every pore. Without a steady stream of crude lying, they're like crack addicts forced to go cold turkey.

[David Nieporent]

The RF knew their claim that the ad was false was so flimsy that they slathered on the claim that the use of the speech wasn't "authorized," which is a bit odd since no "authorization" is needed to quote a presidential speech. (Also, the RF's own website says that the speech is free for anyone to use.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I remember Ronald Reagan and I remember Donald Regan. I'm not sure who you're talking about.

[Area Man]

If the Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes its meaning to suit society's whims, does that mean Trump can serve a third term if the People elect him to one? I hope not, but I can't see why he couldn't if the Constitution doesn't have a set meaning. Like birthright citizenship, if Trump is elected to a third term, I'm sure certain people will come to embrace originalism who normally despise it, while others will become living constitutionalists when they normally give lip service to originalism.

(Also, if the Constitution's meaning changes over time, no reason it can't change to allow the public to own AR-15s, assuming they wouldn't have been protected at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification. But I guess that's not how an "evolving" constitution works.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

I already told you. Lose the handle.

[Life of Brian]

Good grief, maybe you should change yours to "Rectus Corncobus" or similar. Go touch grass.

[Malika la Maize]

As I understand it what’s called living constitutionalism involves adhering to textual principles while not letting historical expectations about applications be binding. But maybe you’ve been reading living constitutionalism scholars I haven’t.

[Area Man]

So if the principle is that the public should be able to choose who they want as president, that should control. Got it.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s pretty dumb, the textual principle of the 22nd is preventing multiple terms.

[Krayt]

The purpose of a written constitution is to stop motivated weasels from arrogating power at their whim, which updates The People decide must be explicit and supermajority.

Infinite power at a 50.1% simple majority is the realm of dictators, whose power, the one true superpower that exists, is blowing the winds of political passion.

As the vote is an abstraction of might makes right, this is no safe way to run things.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Sovereign legitimacy is a matter of pure power, and not necessarily majority power. Power to rule at pleasure, and without constraint, within a more-or-less agreed set of boundaries, is what makes a sovereign legitimate. Whatever can constrain, interfere with, or diminish that power throws sovereign legitimacy into question.

Given that, and given that modern nation states at least since Hobbes have been valorized internally and externally on that basis, it ought to be evident that there is no safe way to run things. Only wiser ways to deploy power, and less-wise ways to do it. Thus sovereign power rules governments, with governments better ruled by wise sovereigns, and worse ruled by less-wise sovereigns.

Your commentary has again and again conflated the notions of government and sovereignty. That dooms you to misunderstand many questions of comparative government. You are in plenty of company, of course. I mention these issues repeatedly, because the American founders were students of the related issues, and did not see them as modern constitutional interpreters such as yourself tend to do. So issues related to these topics come up constantly on this blog.

[Brett Bellmore]

Textually in a Humpty Dumpty sense, maybe.

[Martinned]

In a very real sense the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it does. And at this point there is a non-zero chance that a majority of the Supreme Court will say Trump is allowed another term, just like a majority of the Supreme Court said that Trump can murder Colombian fishermen without legal consequence, and that insurrectionists can run for office notwisthstanding section 3 of the 14th amendment.

[grb]

What I can understand is why people actually believe the people being murdered are "drug dealers". When Trump disappeared a few hundred people into an El Salvador gulag, we were told they were all members of the Tren de Aragua gang. But a few days of reporting showed many weren't and the standard of "evidence" was virtually non-existent. Trump needed live bodies for a stunt, and his lackies & lickspittles weren't particular about fulfilling his orders. That's how Noem got her cosplay photo with brown-skinned people packed in a cage behind her.

The White House didn't care whether they were gang members as long as they had the necessary skin tone. Why believe they care whether the boats they blow-up are carrying drugs? It's only another stunt.

[David Nieporent]

I assume you meant "What I can't understand."

But, I mean, that's a weird stance of yours because it's easy to understand: MAGA is a cult. How many of its adherents think Abrego Garcia had MS-13 tattoos, solely because the cult leader said so?

[TwelveInchPianist]

At least one sitting Justice believes that the constitution can't be amended to remove her from her seat. I suppose that means that an amendment limiting who the people can choose as their President would be invalid for similar reasons.

So it looks like there's already at least one vote on the court for a third Trump term.

[Malika la Maize]

“would be invalid for similar reasons.”

She had some weird retroactive theory iirc which I don’t think would apply to the 22nd and Trump.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The specific reasoning that applied to her wouldn't apply to Trump, but the broader theory would.

[Malika la Maize]

Theories are kind of informed by their reasoning, right? I think you mean the conclusions or results would be similar.

[Josh R]

She didn't put forth a broader theory.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. The broader theory implicit in her reasoning is that some constitutional amendments are invalid.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s pretty broad (you could have gone with “they’re both dumb”
And only be slightly broader), but I don’t think it even tracks as her theory would be that they’re valid in many applications, but not retroactively.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not that broad. Proponents of the unconstitutional constructional amendment theories claim that some amendments are so at odds with fundamental principles that they are void.

Sotomayor's "retroactive law changing something that you've earned" claim is a rather weak example of that. Even under the current constitution, there's no such general protection, here seat is expressly protected by Article III.

The notion that the people have the right to choose their President and elected Presidents have a right to serve would be a much stronger example.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t think that’s right, it’s like saying the principle of grandfathering something=the principle the thing grandfathered is good.

[David Nieporent]

That is a premise, not a theory. Her theory — though badly underdeveloped — is that the law retroactively removes a vested right, and that doing so is impermissible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, then the broader premise implicit in her reasoning is that some constitutional amendments are invalid.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a minor vs a major premise, right?

[Josh R]

Fine, but that doesn't imply that the 22nd is invalid, especially with its explicit grandfathering provision. In short, Sotomayor's theory has little significance to this case.

[Mr. Bumble]

Most of Sotomayor's theories have little significance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. It's a major premise.

2. If you buy the unconditional constitutional amendment theory (which I don't), the 22nd is going to be near the top of the list, what with its intrusion on a fundamental principle of democracy.

[Josh R]

Sotomayor did not put forth a "fundamental principle of democracy" theory.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, as DMN points out, her premise is badly underdeveloped, so we have to draw some inferences about when she thinks constitutional amendments would be invalid.

But it doesn't make sense to have a free-floating "no undoing vested rights" principle without protecting other fundamental aspects of our system of government, like the right to elect our leaders.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInch — The American People do not have any right to elect their leaders. They have something paradoxically stronger, and weaker. They have a sovereign power to rule government, in all its aspects. If they can keep it. While the People remain sovereign, they will keep it. If they cannot keep that power, neither will they remain sovereign.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would one of Lathrop's billionaire friends do a wellness check and possibly get him into a program?

[Josh R]

it doesn't make sense to have a free-floating "no undoing vested rights" principle without protecting other fundamental aspects of our system of government, like the right to elect our leaders.

It's rational, whether or not it is persuasive, that grandfathering is a stand-alone requirement. Moreover assuming grandfathering is but an example of a larger principle, it isn't clear whether term limits violate that principle.

In short, you have read far too much into Sotomayor's comments.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's rational, whether or not it is persuasive, that grandfathering is a stand-alone requirement."

How so?

[Josh R]

How is a belief that grandfathering is, in and of itself, paramount (or on par with perhaps other things) irrational?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because there's no first principle that only supports grandfathering.

[Josh R]

The principle would be not changing the rules after the game has started.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? We change policy all the time.

[Josh R]

Of course we change policies. But without a grandfather clause, it could be changing the rules after the game started (the 22nd has a grandfather clause).

[wvattorney13]

"But without a grandfather clause, it could be changing the rules after the game started"

The point is, why can't we amend the Constitution to allow "changing the rules after the game started"? The complaint seems to smack of lack of due process or something similar. But due process is only protected by the 5A/14A. Why can't a later amendment override that?

[David Nieporent]

No, as DMN points out, her premise is badly underdeveloped, so we have to draw some inferences about when she thinks constitutional amendments would be invalid.

To be fair to Sotomayor, IIRC this was a line in a speech; it wasn't part of a formal judicial opinion or a law review article or even an article in a non-academic publication. It's not clear that it wasn't just a throwaway comment.

[Krayt]

A law could not do that. An amendment could. The People intended the Constitution to create a government and assign it powers, some of which may from time to time step on freedom. But it's all out in the open and deliberate by The People, and The Several States.

No weaselry allowed.

An amendment stating a law akin to a bill of attainder, Justice A. BC, is hereby removed, would be fine.

I'd pep it up a bit, one and only one per, no other issues on the bill, so it cannot be buried in an omnibus bill for arm twisting, and a recorded vote required. And supermajority.

[bernard11]

I guess you can't read.

In particular, she seems to think that term limits could not be applied to the current justices, which she correctly points out would mean that the reformers would not actually get what they most care about which is altering the current composition of the Court.

Her remarks include this provocative claim:

So that means that a current court at the moment these term limits exist, those justices will be there for as long as they want, so you might not get the value of term limits in the United States because of that inherent difficulty.

IOW, she is saying that a term limits amendment would not apply to the current Justices, not that it wouldn't apply to those appointed after the Amendment was adopted.

Since the 22nd Amendment was passed well before Trump's first term that argument has no relevance to him.

Are you just trolling?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Since the 22nd Amendment was passed well before Trump's first term that argument has no relevance to him."

As I said, she's relying on the broader premise that constitutional amendments can be invalid. Given that, why would an amendment that deprives the people of their choice of president be valid?

[Josh R]

If it were not valid, then all term limits imposed by the states would also be invalid. And yet, I believe none of have been challenged in federal court.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No one has ever claimed, outside of limited circumstances, that "you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you've earned" or that a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. This is all new ground.

[Josh R]

Are you arguing that if Sotomayor got her way, state term limits would be successfully challenged in federal court? I very much doubt the latter would follow from the former.

[ducksalad]

Twelve can speak for himself, but I believe his real point is that Sotomayor said something very stupid and ill-advised. Which in turn is forcing you to try and minimize the consequences if she got her way, by claiming it wouldn't be applied consistently.

Maybe in the context of a real dissenting opinion she'd have thought harder about it before committing it to writing. And/or her clerks and fellow justices would've gently pointed out exactly what Twelve is pointing out.

[Josh R]

I'm not convinced one way or the other whether Sotomayor's comments are stupid (I agree with DMN they were not well developed). Nonetheless, I'm not minimizing the consequences of her comments because I very much doubt one of those consequences would be that term limits with a grandfather clause are unconstitutional.

[bernard11]

she's relying on the broader premise that constitutional amendments can be invalid.

Where does she say that? You are just making shit up.

Given that, why would an amendment that deprives the people of their choice of president be valid?

Given what? Who is granting that? And the answer is, the same reason it's valid to require that the President to be 35 years old.

There is no logical reason a constitution can't set requirements for office.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Where does she say that? You are just making shit up."

She said,

In the American system, the problem with a term limit is how will they institute it, because I am promised my job for life, and that can't be taken away constitutionally — I don't believe even with a constitutional amendment — because you cannot have a retroactive law changing something that you've earned.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, I think we went over this a few weeks ago when she originally had that brain fart.

[bernard11]

Did you see the word "retroactive?"

Do you know what it means?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes. So what?

[Magister]

It would be possible to make an amendment so sweeping it would completely repeal any or all of the Constitution. But any amendment so sweeping is never going to be ratified. A narrower term limit amendment with retroactive effect would be very likely to be judged unconstitutional by the very people who would lose the profit, prestige and power of their lifetime positions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Likely to be judged unconstitutional?

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional, other than one that deprives a state of equal suffrage in the Senate?

And how would such a theory limit itself to amendments that retroactively remove judges?

[Magister]

It would have to explicitly rebuke previous constitutional limits, and such a sweeping amendment could not get ratified. An amendment could throw away everything previous; not gonna happen.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Your claim before was that an amendment retroactively imposing term limits would be declared unconstitutional. Are you abandoning that claim? If not, what's the argument?

And we've had an amendment ratified that explicitly repealed another amendment, so of course such a thing can be done.

[Magister]

My point was that an amendment that overturned much would not be ratified; an amendment to explicitly get rid of the longest serving conservative justices would not be approved by enough conservative states. An amendment that did not explicitly say that would be subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court by the justices who would lose their position if they made that interpretation.

[Sarcastr0]

Area man:

"I'm not MAGA."

You just spend all your time picking fights with conjured liberals and a version of 'living constitutionalism' that no one actually follows.

If you want to learn about non-originalist methods of interpretation pick up a book or at least find some article by a proponent to read on the Internet.

This is just wanking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is just wanking."

Which is Sarcastro's turf.

[Area Man]

I’m so MAGA that I’m always shitting on Trump and, in this case, knocking the idea of that he can run for a third term. What a stupid shit head you are.

Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell. All of those were just the Justices making shit up as they went along, you dumb fucking idiot. You scum sucking ass eater.

Lawrence actually ends by saying judges can just make shit up as they go along. You’d know that if you weren’t a mentally deficient bottom feeder.

(For anyone unaware, Sarcastro has taught me the joy of hurling insults like a child at people I disagree with, so that’s why I’ve sunk to his level.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose that might be a convincing argument against the straw man version of Living Constitutionalism that exists in your head.

[Area Man]

By definition, that’s what living constitutionalism is. I’m sorry that you’ve not thought through the implications of it. Or maybe you have, but you have the mainstream version of it where the Constitution changes over time, but only in a way that suits your political and social predilections. If so, you’re in line with the whole point of the “doctrine,” which is to get certain leftwing results.

[Sarcastr0]

You have made a whole lot of things up; no one needs to follow your definitions even if you declare they're true by definition.

MAGA is obsessively anti-liberal. And likes to declare a ton of people liberal. You're not doing a great job dodging the label with this kind of ranting against things you don't seem to have spent time trying to understand.

Including being mad at Kennedy and demanding non-originalists defend him. That's like demanding federal employees defend ICE's tactics. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the wide variety of approaches within non-originalism.

[Malika la Maize]

Maybe don’t make a place on the mantel for that Nobel yet?

The Israeli military began carrying out renewed strikes in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, less than three weeks after President Trump brokered a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas….

The attacks came as Israel and Hamas traded accusations of violating the ceasefire deal that began on Oct. 10.
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he had ordered immediate "forceful strikes" in Gaza following a meeting with his senior security ministers. They discussed what the response should be after accusing Hamas of attempting to stage the return of the partial remains of a hostage whose body the militant group was supposed to hand over under the terms of the ceasefire.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/28/g-s1-95372/netanyahu-israel-strikes-gaza-hamas

[Mr. Bumble]

Day late, dollar short.
"Israel's Military: Ceasefire Is Back On"
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/israel-palestinians-west-bank/2025/10/29/id/1232292/
And before you pooh pooh the source, it's derived form the AP.

[Martinned]

For sure. There's a ceasfire in Gaza ever moment of every day except for the times when Israel or Hamas are shooting. But after every bit of shooting the ceasefire is back!

[Malika la Maize]

Derived from AP? You mean Newsmax doesn’t do its own reporting, just takes MSM reporting and presents it with their spin?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission."
Get you head out of your ass. It's common practice for all news organizations.

[Malika la Maize]

What’s common for places like Newsmax is to not do any real journalism but to scout “MSM” cites they regularly deride selecting stuff from there and just putting a pro Dear Leader slant on it.

[loki13]

Reminder-

The Ninth Circuit stayed the 2-1 panel ruling (administratively, with the panel not disagreeing) in the Oregon/Portland case pending en banc determination on Friday.

This was done after the Oregon pointed out the DOJ lied in oral arguments.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit agreed to take the panel decision for a full en banc rehearing.

I know that all of this is, in a sense, Kabuki, given that eventually SCOTUS will make a determination. But it is a useful reminder that this administration (and its attorneys) have less integrity than the worst ambulance chaser, and that the Courts (with the exception of SCOTUS) have caught on.

See also the ongoing Abrego Garcia litigation, which has just been an absolute marvel of lies, obfuscation, and shifting rationales in order to avoid any type of fact-finding as to what the administration did.

[loki13]

Random thought...

I wonder if this SCOTUS will take up a case just to say ...

"It is emphatically the province and the duty of this Supreme Court, not the Executive Branch, to make up facts out of whole cloth in order to decide cases the way we want. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022)."

[Malika la Maize]

A year ago, in explaining why he had blocked the publication of an endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, Washington Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos conceded that "When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post."

On at least three occasions in the past two weeks, an official Post editorial has taken on matters in which Bezos has a financial or corporate interest without noting his stake. In each case, the Post's official editorial line landed in sync with its owner's financial interests.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/28/nx-s1-5587932/washington-post-editorials-omit-a-key-disclosure-bezos-financial-ties

[Martinned]

Details. Just like I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that John Dickerson is leaving CBS News after 16 years just after a Trump ally bought the network and put a Trump-friendly hack in charge of the news division.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was he fired or did he quit?
Bari Weiss is hardly a conservative.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, I’d say mostly not hardly.

[Bob from Ohio]

What are her "conservative" views?

She likes Israel, that's about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She doesn't hate Jews.

[Malika la Maize]

Check out the recent episode of Last Week Tonight for coverage on that.

Weiss’ charge plays is like Turley’s or Glenn Greenwald:

“I’m totally a moderate pro-choice pro-gay rights liberal, but can we talk about how the left has gone too far?”

[Malika la Maize]

“character”

[Bob from Ohio]

"Check out the recent episode of Last Week Tonight for coverage on that. "

LOL John Oliver!

You should tell me what her conservative views are, unless you are just talking out of your a**.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, he is funny and quite informative as well.

Her conservative views are bog standard MAGA ones given what her demonstrable focus is on. Her prefacing them with “I’m person/choice and gay rights” isn’t anymore convincing to thinking people than North Korea calling itself a democratic republic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"given what her demonstrable focus is on"

So, you can't give me a single specific example, Thought so.

She doesn't think conservatives are two headed monsters, so that means she is one.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, more like she says “let’s focus on what conservatives are saying!”

[Bob from Ohio]

"more like she says “let’s focus on what conservatives are saying!”

Does she? I suppose you have quotes.

I think you are moving the goalpost, that is not a policy position.

[David Nieporent]

“I’m totally a moderate pro-choice pro-gay rights liberal, but can we talk about how the left has gone too far?”

Right; she's not pro-Trump — she's just anti-anti-Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Bari Weiss is hardly a conservative.

Bari Weiss is a self-proclaimed liberal with only conservative positions.

[Bob from Ohio]

"only conservative positions."

Malika struck out so maybe you can identify some conservative positions she has?

[Malika la Maize]

That the “Left” has “gone too far” on everything.

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't liberals think that the DSA goes too far?

[Sarcastr0]

OK you don't have any idea what her message is, you just want to fuck around.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you have any examples her conservative positions?

[Bob from Ohio]

They don't. Its all vibes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you don't have any idea what her message is"

Never read her website or her at NYT, but it looks like she thinks media is biased against Trump supporters and/or conservatives. And she would like to change that.

The only substantive thing I know is that she is pro-abortion. I keep asking for examples of other positions that are conservative but no one responds.

[Sarcastr0]

So you admit you don't know anything about her, and that you aren't really interested in learning.

Certainly you turn your nose up at John Oliver!

It makes one suspect your 'maybe you can identify some conservative positions she has' was not asked in good faith.

[Bob from Ohio]

"'maybe you can identify some conservative positions she has' was not asked in good faith"

Yet none of her haters can provide answers. Not a one, just vibes. She doesn't share your madness, so is bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol.

New rule: You don't have to defend your position if you accuse the people questioning you of bad faith. Comes in real handy when you have positions you can't defend.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And to be honest I don't really know many of her positions either. But I'm becoming convinced that she's not a conservative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But I'm becoming convinced that she's not a conservative."

All they need to do is come up with a couple of examples.

Jewish lesbian Ivy grad who wrote for Haaratz, The Forward, NYT. Just like all conservatives!

"She said of American Jews who support President Donald Trump:
I hope this week that American Jews have woken up to the price of that bargain: They have traded policies that they like for the values that have sustained the Jewish people—and frankly, this country—forever: Welcoming the stranger; dignity for all human beings; equality under the law; respect for dissent; love of truth.[92]" wikipedia

Very MAGA!

[David Nieporent]

Jewish lesbian Ivy grad who wrote for Haaratz, The Forward, NYT. Just like all conservatives!

And then left the NYT, denouncing it for its liberalism, and founded an outlet devoted to criticizing liberals. Just like all liberals!

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "And then left the NYT, denouncing it for its liberalism"

Please copy/paste where she denounced the NYT "for its liberalism."

I vaguely recall her denouncing the Times for its failure (particularly in 2020) to stop many of its leftist employees from harassing and intimidating any employees who expressed skepticism of their sensitive causes. But I don't recall her having criticized its "liberalism."

Cite?

[Bob from Ohio]

"denouncing it for its liberalism"

Here is her resignation letter.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/bari-weiss-on-why-she-left-the-new-york-times

Don't see any denouncing it for its liberalism, do see some denouncing it for its illiberalism and intolerance.

[Bwaaah]

David's just parroting a common take on anybody who isn't stridently opposed to DJT. In that take, you are either against DJT or you are against freedom/justice/the American way. There is no third way in a world where there are only two ways about it.

Binary judgement. That is all. Why entertain differences? Not here. Not about HIM.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And then left the NYT, denouncing it for its liberalism,"

Is she in the room with you right now, denouncing the NYT for its liberalism?

[TwelveInchPianist]

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Maybe she is a conservative.

[Estragon]

Bari Weiss suggested they interview Dan Brown on CBS News after the Louvre heist. She is not a serious person.

[Sarcastr0]

There's nothing inherently wrong or unserious about being an opinion column writer.

But offering opinion-level ideas as fodder for journalistic reporting? That's unserious.

[Estragon]

“opinion column”

I am not aware of any such columns written by Mr Brown. I presume my familiarity with Mr Brown is the same as Bari Weiss’— he’s a dude who wrote a fiction novel about a murder in the Louvre. Aside from that fact, I (and apparently others in the CBS Newsroom) am puzzled as to what special insight this novelist could have into a jewel heist in the real world.

[Sarcastr0]

Talking to him would be fine opinion column fodder. Human interest, get the clicks.

She confuses that for journalism. Which, to be fair, seems the intent behind her hiring.

[Estragon]

Fair enough. IMO her primary skill seems to be sucking up to rich and powerful people and telling them what they want to hear. A tale as old as time.

[Sarcastr0]

I find it infuriating how hard she's failed up.

[Bob from Ohio]

So its just jealousy?

[grb]

(kinda cute when the adults are talking and the kid pipes in with something out of left field)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, the adults are infuriated that someone they disagree with is successful.

Sure Jan.

[Bob from Ohio]

Maybe Brown did research on Louvre security? That might be a hook.

Are you under the impression that CBS Morning does just hard news?

I bet celebrities get asked all sorts of stuff there.

[Sarcastr0]

Making shit up so Weiss' take could perhaps look less clownish and then saying 'maybe! That might be a hook.' That's just fucking around.

Switch CBS News for CBS Morning? Fucking around.

You don't know who this person is, don't seem to care except that you want to fuck around with people who do know who she is and don't care for what she's doing.

You're an unserious person who resents other people trying to be serious.

[Bob from Ohio]

CBS Mornings is produced by CBS News, serious person.

[Estragon]

That you would spend your free time coming around here to write fan fiction in service of Bari Weiss’ braindead editorial choices is so deliciously overdetermined.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're an unserious person who resents other people trying to be serious."

Wait, you're trying to be serious? Dear God!

[Estragon]

I’m not unserious! You are!

As was pointed out to me recently— it’s like Don has turned you people into 12 year olds.

I dump poopy on your protests!

[hobie]

I've definitely noticed a change in tenor in the WAPO's editorial section. They are not so much talking truth to power anymore. Looks like tech titan ideals were all fine and dandy until government server contracts got in the way.

[Bwaaah]

No more "talking truth to power" at the Washington Post? Is that, like, what you do? "Talk truth to power?"

Is that like "systemic racism?"

The Democratic Party is calling, They're requesting that you stop using trite woke phrases that make them look like the same bunch of rubes that brought us 2020.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika la Maize — Not a criticism of your comment, which serves the discussion well. But make it a point to notice that since Section 230 passed, there have occurred 4 baleful tendencies in online media:

1. Giantism.

2. Destruction of national news gathering capacity.

3. A lurch toward oligarchical alliance between media giants and government.

4. Individualized news feeds, to replace audience curation by content management.

All 4 have boggled public discourse by opening opportunities for destruction of audience reliance on public discourse. The first 3 are what the following will address.

For anyone well-versed in the activities and financial dynamics of the periodical publishing industry, predictable onset of the first 3 of those tendencies needed no more than study of Section 230 itself, right at the outset. I can say that with confidence, because I predicted all 3 for years, beginning about 2002. I began reiterating those predictions on this blog many years ago.

I got back only denial and ridicule, at first. Now, it's more like denial, more denial, and subject changes.

But here we are, with all 3 tendencies now matured into unsatisfying lived experience. Plenty of folks complain about that. Almost no one is willing even to consider that passage of Section 230 was its cause.

I have proved by trying and failing that this audience, at least, is unwilling to be tutored on practical basics of periodical publishing, at least not sufficiently to grasp what happened. Or maybe I have merely proved that I am unequal to that task, or that this forum is unsuited to convey the complexity of the topic to an audience disinclined to hear it is complex.

Thus, all I accomplished was to make predictions decades in advance of their realization. I remained unable to overcome resistance to hearing that process explained. Objections make clear that many believe, wrongly, that Section 230 legally enabled internet discourse, which would fall apart without it.

That need not be the case. And the disintegration is occurring, not just anyway, but because of Section 230. It established a practical legal regime less suitable for the long-term management of public discourse than the system which preceded it. While the system which preceded it should have been updated to take practical advantage of cost and technical advantages the internet does deliver.

But before means can be explained to create an alternative to the currently malfunctioning system of internet discourse, folks must open their minds to the notion that Section 230 is more destructive to discourse than enabling for it. And before that can happen, utopian hopes will have to be given up, Those are prevailing hopes for personal publishing power greater than any publisher on earth has ever previously enjoyed.

You cannot have for anyone, let alone for everyone, a power to: publish world-wide, anything at all, anonymously, at no cost, without liability, without prior editing, without post-publishing take-downs, without government censorship, and without government–publisher collusion. That package is not practical, and cannot be made practical.

No power in government, nor from any other source, can deliver it without dismantling the practical means to accomplish publishing. Thus to say it cannot happen is not to say that policy ought to prohibit it, it is to say that doing that has always been an impossibility.

Sorry. You can't have it. Hearst could not have it. Pulitzer could not have it. Zuckerberg does not have it. Which is why you are not getting it now, while more and more people complain. Perhaps prolonged frustration will prove the only goad sufficiently powerful to get internet utopians to open their minds to other possibilities.

It used to be that I thought the first step toward improvement would be repeal of Section 230. Too late for that now. Now the first step will be to assemble political means to disentangle government–publisher collusion. Not easy to accomplish, without effective public discourse uncontrolled by either government or oligarchical publishers.

[David Nieporent]

I got back only denial and ridicule, at first. Now, it's more like denial, more denial, and subject changes.

No, still plenty of ridicule.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Same source, too. Oh, well. Your insistence speaks for your intransigence. What is it you like about present-day platform giantism, government–media collusion, and destruction of legacy media news gathering?

[loki13]

Let's see! Some other news...

1. Lay down with dogs, ya gonna get fleas.

Remember that some of the BigLaw firms caved to Trump's extortion? Well, not only did they suffer (in terms of partner defection and difficulty attracting new hires), an ethics opinion was just released that (correctly) notes that the arrangements that they made would require those firms to drop clients (or obtain knowing and informed waivers from same) who have interests that are ... at odds with the government.

Oops!

2. Another judge has rules that a Trump USA was unlawfully serving in the role. This one was Essayli (C.D. Cal.). These are beginning to rack up. At some point, you have to wonder why is all this turmoil being created?

Well, maybe Halligan can talk to someone about it ... of the record ... retroactively.

Last competent attorney that leaves the DOJ, don't forget to turn off the lights.

[Estragon]

Fun little Halligan tidbit:

Here’s an order from the Judge overseeing the appointment challenge to Ms Halligan. I found it amusing that she is referred to as the “indictment signer.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342.28.0.pdf

[loki13]

Heh. Really, if you look back at the history of Trump, you can see one common denominator.

He ensures that everyone around him degrades themselves so thoroughly for him that they are left with two choices- either continue slavishly following his whims, regardless of how much more thorough their degradation becomes ... or break with him, knowing that he has already made them so broken in the eyes of others that they would not be able to return to the lives that they are accustomed.

[Paladin_44]

+

[loki13]

Additional thought. I've read through all the various orders re: USAs and unlawful appointments. I think the most recent one was a pretty good summary of the state of the law.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.983892/gov.ucourts.cacd.983892.56.0.pdf

Notice that they always win on the underlying issue, but the remedy ... that's the tough one.

EXCEPT ... one of the few big issues with the Halligan ... can I call it a circus? The Halligan circus is that because Halligan couldn't get any competent attorney to sign off on the indictments, she did it herself.

Which means that when it comes to remedies, the Halligan issue is, in fact, quite different than the others. And noting that she was the indictment signer ... that matters.

[Estragon]

Yes in a saner timeline Ms Halligan might have gotten herself into hot water professionally. I won’t hold my breath on her facing any consequences in this reality though.

[loki13]

Karma is justice without the satisfaction.

[Estragon]

It’s comforting to think so, at least.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The legap profession will find itself an alien in its own country before long.

[Estragon]

“I shall not rest until every German sees that it is a shameful thing to be a lawyer.”

[hobie]

MAGA/Cannon 2024 - Jack Smith's appointment was illegal because he was not confirmed by the Senate

MAGA 2025 - Nevermind!
Alina Habba (New Jersey)
John Sarcone III (Northern District of New York)
Bill Essayli (Central District of California)
Lindsey Halligan (Virginia)

[loki13]

Should make a Tour T-Shirt.

Trump's United States Attorney General Unlawful Appointment Tour '25

[hobie]

I vote for 'Smells Like Teen Spirit Tour'

[loki13]

Naw. That's going to be the slogan for ...

"Trump Still Hasn't Released the Epstein Files" Tour

[hobie]

At least you understand the reference. But now I have to deal with The Publius who - every week - has failed to understand what my meaning was. I've always thought that to glorify the hate, hypocrisy, criminality and racism your maturity needed to be that of a child, but Publius takes that further because he doesn't understand even basic humor.

[David Nieporent]

Odds that any MAGA person describes Essayli (or Habba) as "illegally appointed"?

[Life of Brian]

an ethics opinion was just released that (correctly) notes that the arrangements that they made would require those firms to drop clients (or obtain knowing and informed waivers from same) who have interests that are ... at odds with the government.

Surprising you wouldn't link a gem like that -- I presume it's this one.

Strangely, not only does it not mention any specific firms or arrangements, it directs lawyers and firms to "consider whether" a given arrangement would raise issues, employing words like "could" and "if" rather than "would."

Or do you have access to the specific firm agreements and have already sagely and generously taken it upon yourself to apply this guidance to them?

[David Nieporent]

Strangely, not only does it not mention any specific firms or arrangements, it directs lawyers and firms to "consider whether" a given arrangement would raise issues, employing words like "could" and "if" rather than "would."

That is not in fact "strange," because that's how bar ethics opinions work.

[Life of Brian]

Well, yeah. Exactly why I called Loki out for claiming otherwise.

[Magister]

Lawyers are known for talking like lawyers; I expect that lawyers who write bar ethics opinions take that to even greater heights. I appreciate it when lawyers in comments here speak more plainly and directly as to the plain meaning of such things. If your purpose was to dispute loki13's interpretation, why wouldn't you say that as plainly and directly?

[Bob from Ohio]

Max Tani@maxwelltani
Layoffs are hitting CBS News today. On CBS' morning editorial call, Bari Weiss said it was a "enormously difficult day" for the network.

But a good day for the rest of us.

[Martinned]

Sure. Who needs free and fair elections anyway?

[Ska]

CBS is responsible for elections now?

[Martinned]

No, but an independent press is an important prerequisite for having free and fair elections, and the US is pretty far gone in that department.

[Ska]

All media outlets should have no changes in ownership, nor leadership, nor employees, lest the End of Democracy ™ is thrust upon us.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not at all. Media outlets should not be giantized, consolidated, and co-opted by government until hell won't have it.

Regardless of ownership, leadership, employees, etc., multiplication and diversification of media outlets serves the health of democracy.

[Ska]

I've got good news (pun not intended) for you: this has been happening at an incredibly high rate for the last two decades.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ska — If you mean, "this," to refer to media diversity, no. Joe Keyboard almost never does anything relevant to media productivity, except indirectly, by supporting gianistic platforms which harm actual news media, degrade national discourse, and collude with government. Even so-called news bloggers rarely deliver news stories. It's almost all opinion, (or lies), and echo-chamber re-posting of stories actually dug out by the shrinking remnant of legacy media organizations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"independent press"

I mentioned CBS, an arm of the Democratic party

[ThePublius]

What a jerk.

[ThePublius]

"As Weiss casts her eyes about for what needs to be fixed at CBS News, 60 Minutes would be the most obvious place to start. It's the clogged toilet of bias at CBS News, and it needs to be addressed. The program has been awful since, well, forever. I honestly can't remember a time when 60 Minutes wasn't merely a televised fan club for the Democratic National Committee."

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2025/10/29/the-morning-briefing-pondering-how-much-magic-bari-weiss-can-work-at-cbs-news-n4945363

[Malika la Maize]

From pjmedia, lol.

[Bob from Ohio]

You cite John Oliver, take the beam from your eye.

[Malika la Maize]

Much better than pjmedia.

[Mr. Bumble]

One trick TDS pony.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The difference is that John Oliver supports his opinions with facts. Stephen Kruiser simply engages in name calling.

[Krayt]

As Weiss casts her eyes about for what needs to be fixed at CBS News, 60 Minutes would be the most obvious place to start. It's the clogged toilet of bias at CBS News

I believe 60 Minutes long ago was transferred to the entertainment division, to the chagrin of the news people. They worried about it.

[Malika la Maize]

By late January 2025, two babies had died in Louisiana.

But the Louisiana Department of Health waited two months to send out a social media post suggesting people talk to their doctors about getting vaccinated.
The department took even longer to issue a statewide health alert to physicians, send out a press release or hold a press conference.

Those delays are not typical, according to Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association.
"Particularly for these childhood diseases, we usually jump all over these," said Benjamin, who has led health departments in Maryland and the District of Columbia. "These are preventable diseases and preventable deaths."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/10/28/nx-s1-5576494/louisiana-whooping-cough-pertussis-infant-deaths

[hobie]

If the rubes and their politicians are so afraid of the Brown Shirts (er...the Red Hats) that they are willing to sacrifice their own children, I say let them.

Even worse would be that they are going all sacrificial not out of fear, but because they want to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the left that sacrifices its children to abortion.

[Joe_dallas]

The article is a perfect example of how dishonest the media is with using false narratives and / or misleading narratives.

One of the two babies that died was less the 2 month old which before the baby is eligible to get the whooping cough vaccine. The age of the other baby who wasnt mentioned.
The actual facts seriously undercuts the major premise of the story.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, a frequent-flyer commenter on the public health beat, to whom the notion of contagion remains a mystery.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - This has become a recurring theme with the leftists who dominate this blog with limited, if any, knowledge of basic facts. Dont blame me for your lack of general knowledge or your inability to recognize the misleading story line. I pointed out the specific deception in the article, yet you still missed it.

Dig a little deeper and perhaps you will recognize that you likewise fell victim to the misleading article.

[Absaroka]

I think the implication is that the 0-2 month old babies won't get pertussis if the vaccination schedule is generally followed because:
1)they will benefit from herd immunity
2)their moms will have been vaccinated while pregnant, and that protects the newborn

FWIW, here are pertussis cases by year. Wide use of pertussis vaccination started in the late 40's.

[Absaroka]

The Wiki article says:

"in England and Wales before the introduction of pertussis immunisation in the 1950s, the average annual number of notifications exceeded 120,000. By 1972, when vaccine coverage was around 80%, there were only 2,069 notifications of pertussis. The professional and public anxiety about the safety and efficacy of the whole-cell vaccine caused coverage to fall to about 60% in 1975 and around 30% by 1978. Major epidemics occurred in 1977–79 and 1981–83. In 1978 there were over 65,000 notifications and 12 deaths (see the chart of pertussis notifications). These two major epidemics illustrate the impact of a fall in coverage of an effective vaccine. The actual number of deaths due to these pertussis outbreaks was higher since not all cases in infants are recognised."

[Magister]

Infants are not eligible for their first pertussis vaccine until they're 2 months old, but they can acquire immunity if their mother was immunized while pregnant.

That's in the story. The major premise of the story is the delayed response from the Louisiana Department of Health being bad, not failure to immunize an infant who was not eligible for vaccination.

The events also highlight that vaccination is not just for the person vaccinated; with wider vaccination, people who cannot be vaccinated will be somewhat protected by being less likely to come in contact with the disease vaccinated.

Because infectious diseases spread exponentially, if officials don't alert the public quickly, they lose a key chance to prevent further infections, said Dr. Abraar Karan, an instructor on infectious diseases at Stanford University who has worked on COVID-19 and mpox outbreaks.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Large Language Mistakes:

https://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2025/10/large-language-mistake.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Speaking of LLMs has anyone tried out Grokipedia?
If so any thoughts?

[Martinned]

It would be nice if it didn't plagiarise content from Wikipedia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that the nature of LLMs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — Try to distinguish the nature of LLMs from the practices of their developers. Credited attributions do not plagiarize. Copyrighted works are not in the public domain.

[Mr. Bumble]

Talk to Martinned.

[Bunny495]

Just got the Tesla 14.1 update for my model Y. One feature is a long press on a button brings up Grok and allow a choice of personalities. While it does answer serious questions if they are asked it is a whole lot more. I really enjoy the Unhinged option since there are really no mistakes possible there. When I asked it what the capitol was of Kamikazistan the rant was hilarious. It is just what I was looking for on those long highway trips.

[Estragon]

Trumpist billionaires anonymously donating millions to fund the army while SNAP expires for 40 million people is really a statement on where America is in 2025. And meanwhile “America’s Hitler” is building a cozier bunker.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Senate should vote to pass the CR then. Weird they are helping Trump.

[Martinned]

Who's stopping you?

[Bob from Ohio]

from passing the CR? well, I'm not a senator for starters

[David Nieporent]

Trumpist billionaires anonymously donating millions to fund the army

Assuming it happened at all, the millions would not in fact "fund the army," so it's all performative.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and today what isn't performative?

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear on what I meant here: there are two issues. The first is that while people are allowed to donate money to the federal government, they cannot direct how that money is spent. The second is that the reported $130 million would fund the military payroll for… six hours.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry your benefits will run out.

[Estragon]

I rather doubt that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Miss a few meals or die a slow, lingering death from radiation poisoning -- which do you think I would prefer.

As to building bunkers, Trump is stupid if he doesn't at least make provisions for the USSS to build under his new ballroom. And speaking of the USSS, can you imagine the security nightmare of protecting a TENT from a sniper?

Whereas you can have Lexon windowpanes and equally bulletproof walls and roofs of a 2025-built ballroom. Heck, you could probably build it to stop a RPG and I hope they do.

The more you hate Trump, the MORE you want him to be safe -- you don't want him becoming a martyr!

[Estragon]

This is obviously more of a response than you deserve, but:

Is there a purer distillation of modern Trumpist thought than is presented by Ed here?

40 million people are being denied food support on Saturday, but Ed would rather talk about “radiation poisoning.” What this means is anyone’s guess.

Then we shift to his assessment of “lexon” and windows— his expertise on structural features gleaned (from what I can tell) from years of watching Hollywood action movies and TV cop procedurals.

I.e. fiction.

Real world people going hungry, but Ed is more worried about his violent fantasies. MAGA in a nutshell.

[David Nieporent]

Then we shift to his assessment of “lexon” and windows— his expertise on structural features gleaned (from what I can tell) from years of watching Hollywood action movies and TV cop procedurals.

I.e. fiction.

Yes, but also he continued in the storied Dr. Ed tradition of not ever getting anything right. What he's referring to is Lexan, not Lexon.

[Bunny495]

My biggest takeaway was that during the events held in tents at the Whitehouse diplomats and the like were required to use Porta Potties. That has to be a hoot for some of them.

[grb]

I've become a big fan of Wes Anderson's films and his latest, The Phoenician Scheme, is his best since Grand Budapest. But repeated viewings has made it clear to me the film is about Donald John Trump.

Mind you, this is against the movie's own dedication just before the end credits and Anderson's own protestations. Per both, the film is (very roughly) inspired by his father-in-law Fouad Malouf, who was a Lebanese businessman and engineer. But come on! A rouge businessman whose word can't be trusted, who's known for shady dealings, who's opposed by shadowy "deep-state" operatives - yet continues relentlessly on against all the forces arrayed against him - often preserving over impossible odds.

It seems the Trump Myth, given the Wes Anderson treatment. There's even mention of junk lawsuits and tariffs to boot. And it's a very sympathetic portrait - the Trump-like character is the hero of the film despite all his personal failings. Of course that's because the character does have principles which triumph in the end; he isn't just the hollowed-out nothing of a human being that is DJT.

Note : The film also has Kate Winslet's daughter playing the daughter, who is a novitiate nun. Generally speaking, all things from Ms Winslet should be treasured and - yes - that includes her daughter.

[Bunny495]

As hardcore Cinephile and a Wes Anderson fanboy I am forced to point out that while a few somewhat unhinged peeps subscribe to the film is about Trump there is a general consensus this is wrong.

[grb]

1. As I noted, Anderson denies it and dedicated the film to someone else.

2. I find his denial not entirely persuasive. I suspect that will be the judgement emerging over time.

3. But right now I seem to be at odds with the "general consensus". Horrors!

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/29/trump-jan-6-prosecutors-suspended/

Okay, so, the judges in DC presided over these cases and like everyone else, saw a lot of video of those events. They almost certainly agree with the line prosecutors here. So WH interference over this is not going to look good to the judges in DC. It’ll further erode their trust in DOJ. And unfortunately for the WH, despite having a pliant SCOTUS majority, SCOTUS isn’t actually the end all be all of the judiciary in this country. SCOTUS can’t and won’t step in to save the WH every time. This is particularly true when they’re using criminal law to achieve their ends. If they want their high profile prosecutions to survive they shouldn’t be firing line prosecutors who are telling the judges that the sky is blue.

One nice thing about fascists, is that they are generally stupid thugs that hate being called fascists and think it’s simply an insult that actually describes the left. Which means they’ll never read books by historians or experts exploring fascist regimes and therefore won’t realize the importance of not alienating the judiciary and civil service in their attempt to totally control the state.

[grb]

If you have any experience with people suffering severe cognitive collapse, you often see them fixating on bizarre obsessions. Obviously Trump has many of these given the advanced state of his brain rot. For example, more than one foreign leader has sat by Trump in silent embarrassment as DJT ranted on&on about the special meaning and history of the word "groceries".

But just when you think you know all of these random tics from his decaying mind, another one manifests itself. In a speech yesterday to Navy personnel stationed in Japan, this weird statement was buried in the usual cesspool of lies, crudities, and childish drivel:

"You take a little glass of water and you drop it on magnets. I don't know what's going to happen."

I admit not knowing that one, but it seems Trump has a history of believing water magically negates magnetism. But what can you do? The man has the brain wattage of a turnip. Random neurons fire-off and unfiltered nonsense flows out. Most people suffering from dementia realize their brain is going. They become desperate to assert their rationality - but that very desperation is warped by the disease into something painful & embarrassing to see. Thus Trump.

[loki13]

It's well-known that water decreases the efficacy of magnetism 1589% and causes autism.
-Ken Paxton, probably.

[grb]

At this point, what's left that doesn't cause autism? I bet pregnant women wearing ugly red caps is a contributing factor.

[loki13]

RFK Jr.'s voice causes autism.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

[grb]

But is it the brain worm talking?

[Frank Drackman]

The Brain worm's a real thing, might want to get yours checked.

[santamonica811]

I miss Trump talking about sharks . . . .

[Bunny495]

I was always amused by diamagnet levitation being used to levitate frogs.

[bernard11]

Did anybody notice the gibberish he spewed in Japan?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That was Bush. Get your presidents straight.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cocaine-trafficking-charges-know-ex-180650865.html

Head of Governor's regional office busted for POUNDS of cocaine.

[Ska]

Springfield, MA is kind of a shithole, though I do recall them having a pretty good New Orleans themed strip club. This was 20 years ago... they had full nudity, alcohol, and indoor smoking. It was, well, not an oasis, but a reprieve from typical societal norms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2025/10/29/gov-healey-staffer-fired-after-arrest-on-cocaine-trafficking-charge/

Yes, it's 2 hours from Boston, but Healey was AG for 8 years and you'd think -- ummm.....

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Head of Governor's regional office busted for POUNDS of cocaine"

Cue a presidential pardon in four....three....two....one.... Because if there's one thing Donald Trump can't abide, it's politicians facing criminal penalties for their crimes. As a lifelong criminal himself, he takes that kinda of thing personally. If there was ever a organization of corrupt pols - like a college fraternity - Trump would be head frat boy.

That said, three problems :

1. This guy is only an ex-aide to a politician, which makes him "little people". I'm not sure the Brotherhood of Politicians On The Make (BPOTM) mobilizes for losers like that.

2. And opening up the link, we find he has a decidedly dark face. Trump does pardon black people, but usually only celebs and rappers. It's his connection to the street.

3. But what about Changpeng Zhao, you say? That was a non-white pardon of someone who never appeared on Entertainment Tonight. But Zhao got his pardon the old-fashioned way : He bought it by "investing" tens of millions in Trump's crypto business. And a good transaction it was for the criminal in jail for laundering money from drug dealers, pedophiles, and human traffickers! He was under court order to pay $4.3bn in restitution. The Trump payoff saved him a bundle.

[loki13]

Actual law-related substance-

In the Illinois case (you know, the national guard case that is up before SCOTUS), the Supreme Court has issued an order requesting additional briefing.

The issue?

"Whether the term 'regular forces' refers to the forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation of 10 U.S.C. sec. 12406(3)."

Discuss! I'd say ... discuss if you actually have any knowledge that is relevant to the issue, as opposed to an opinion about what you already know to be true, but who am I kidding!

I am assuming that this might have come because of what Marty Lederman, et al., have been talking about.

[loki13]

(If you're curious, and I know most of you aren't, the issue is that (3) states -
"Whenever … the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States … the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to … execute those laws.”

The argument is the "regular forces" refers to the military forces, and this is evidenced throughout the history of the act since since the Militia Act (when the military was referred to as "Regulars"). In short, the President cannot use this as a basis to supplement LAW ENFORCEMENT (ICE, etc.) since they aren't regular forces.

Definitely interesting, and might appeal to an honest so-called originalist or textualist.

[Sarcastr0]

That was interesting - I reads to me as thought regular forces meant federal law enforcement forces executing the laws of the US.

Because what would the military be doing executing the laws of the US?

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, I think "regular forces" means nothing more than "the forces regularly used to that purpose".

[loki13]

Indeed, I expected Brett to explain to us what he already knows to be true (Brettlaw) as opposed to, you know, actually doing any research on it.

Or, for that matter, wondering why the Supreme Court asked for briefing on the issue if Brettlaw was so obvious.

(Again, there are actual briefs and arguments that people can look up that detail history, statutory text, and usage ... instead of just resorting to, "Well, it means what I think it means, because that's what I want it to mean" ipse dixit analysis. You don't have to agree with an argument, but you should at least understand what the argument is before making up something out of whole cloth because you just know the meaning of something based on your profound intellect and intuitive understanding of what "regular forces" meant when the relevant language was passed.)

[not guilty]

Exactly. What Brett "thinks" about the law is lacking in two critical respects: (1) Nomination by the President, and (2) Confirmation by the Senate.

[grb]

loki13 : "Definitely interesting, and might appeal to an honest so-called originalist or textualist."

I thought Trump got rid of the Endangered Species Act. That can't be any more of them left.

[hobie]

The unfortunate thing is that - like all the MAGA - these National Guard seem to be more loyal to their paycheck than to their oath or national civility. Same as the MAGA. We tend to think our military is above all this, but I'm worried they ain't.

[Estragon]

“South Carerdddd”

Can someone put grandpa to bed?

[ducksalad]

Meh, this one gets a pass.

"South Korea" with his accent, voice recognition got it wrong, and he tried to say delete four times to back over it.

The real problem is usual boasful, inaccurate, and venal content of the corrected post:

South Korea has agreed to pay the USA 350 Billion Dollars for a lowering of the Tariff’s charged against them by the United States. Additionally, they have agreed to buy our Oil and Gas in vast quantities, and investments into our Country by wealthy South Korean Companies and Businessmen will exceed 600 Billion Dollars. Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble, diesel powered Submarines that they have now. A great trip, with a great President of South Korea!

By no means his worst post but still trademark Trump.

[Estragon]

“ this one gets a pass.”

Why? We are being governed by tweet. Shouldn’t it at least be sensical?

[David Nieporent]

I just want to emphasize, that — as with every other claim of this nature Trump has made — it's delusional. South Korea hasn't agreed to pay the US a penny.

[hobie]

There's a lot of mental illness in my hood. Bums walking around shouting at the air. People going crazy and tearing at their houses. Yesterday a young man committed suicide. Last Saturday night a big one walked straight into my living room (when I managed to kick him out the police took him down in thrilling fashion)

All this got me to thinking about all the hayseeds and your hayseed children.

Remember how all you fragile mask-hating patriots said wearing a mask was psychologically damaging your children and not being able to go to school was permanently scarring them? And I thought to myself, 'Jeesus, what a load of bullshit.'

But let's say what you said then was true. That a little inconvenience can warp the human mind. What do you think happens when an entire race is hunted, humiliated and degraded every single day by hayseeds like you...all over the world? I'll tell you what I think. I think you hayseeds are right. The human mind is that fragile.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What do you think happens when an entire race is hunted, humiliated and degraded every single day by hayseeds like you...all over the world?"

I don't know. Maybe if it ever happens we'll find out.

[hobie]

"hunted, humiliated and degraded" I assume, Brett, that it is the 'hunted' part that you disagree with. You want me to explain both the historical and contemporaneous applications of that word?

Because...I mean....the humiliation and degredation part happens here every 30 minutes. It happens every time I go to work. You guys can never stop talking about your hatred of colored people. I'm literally having to hear this shit every time I try an type out an expense report

[Brett Bellmore]

No, idiot, it's the "entire", "every single day" "hayseeds like you", and "all over the world" that I disagree with.

If you wanted to say that some members of a particular race sometimes got that treatment in some places from some people, there'd be little to disagree with. Claiming it of every last member of that race over the entire world is a bit much, don't you think?

My neighbors don't seem terribly hunted or humiliated, and I live in a neighborhood that's about half black. Not a lot of hunting or humiliation going on here.

[Frank Drackman]

I know I'm from Hayseed Country but you walk into someone's living room uninvited down here and you'll be pushing up daisies.
Is that still a thing? "Pushing up Daisies"??? or has it gone to the Phrase Grave Yard along with "Strong Letter to Follow" or "Post no Bills"???
OK, sometimes you'll get shot for walking into someone's living room, In-vited, that's why I try to avoid other peoples homes.

Frank

Frank

[M L]

I am sympathetic to the concerns about taking out boats of supposed drugs and drug dealers and narco-terrorists.

But a Democrat response of saying that "MAGA" won't like "who gets killed when President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" does it, misses the mark, I'd say.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/10/29/himes-maga-cheering-trumps-illegal-killings-wont-like-who-president-aoc-kills/

"Hey - tit for tat. You kill our murderous drug trafficking cartels, we kill your . . . " Conservative campus activists? Pro-life protestors? Innocent children? What's the equivalent.

[hobie]

Well, if AOC said that, the murders are justified. You shouldn't feel guilty, ML.

[wvattorney13]

It is not a Trump decree that makes the killings justified. The fact that they are justified makes them justified.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't have WVA coming out in favor of the Kirk assassination on today's bingo card.

[Ska]

Is cattle rustling still a thing?

[Frank Drackman]

We call it "Rasslin" down south, but I don't think it ever was a thing.

[M L]

I like that idea. Just some lovable scofflaws near and dear to one political side.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are you a vegetarian? If takes an interest rate cut to afford a rib roast, then of course cattle rustling is still happening. Probably more than usual.

[ducksalad]

What's the equivalent.

First, it was a bad statement for Himes to make. He might have been trying to make the now-mundane point that you wouldn't want your opponent's POTUS to have the extraordinary powers that Trump is claiming, but making it sound like a tit-for-tat threat to kill some of yours was dumb.

But what would be the equivalent? We're talking about a POTUS using their outside-the-borders military authority to kill foreign actors doing stuff the POTUS doesn't like.

One could guess what AOC doesn't like. Guns, so maybe kill foreigners involved in the illicit gun trade. Silk Road kind of stuff, so maybe bomb some data centers in third world countries or people involved in the "fulfilment" side of the business.

She doesn't like rich people, at least those she feels are undeserving. I doubt she'd outright assassinate anyone for being rich, but one could imagine her ordering a raid on some island tax haven to seize some wealth she thinks is ill-gotten.

It's all very unlikely. What you DO need to worry about is her using the now almost unlimited power to apply sanctions, tariffs, and visa denials, because she would do that stuff to a very different set of countries, industries, and foreign leaders. One could easily imagine her treating Netanyahu, Orban, and Milei the way Trump treats Petro and Lula.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

One could guess what AOC doesn't like. Guns, so maybe kill foreigners involved in the illicit gun trade.

And what makes you or anyone else think that "MAGA" would bitch about that? Hell, the last administration that had any direct responsibility for fueling that trade (that we now about) was Obama's.

[ducksalad]

And what makes you or anyone else think that "MAGA" would bitch about that?

Actually I think MAGA would bitch about each and every thing President AOC did, just because it was her that did it. But that's a different point...

Fast and Furious was illegal, it was executive overreach, it was bad policy, and they lied about it. However, your comment is 180 degrees off point. You know damn well the motivation was to entrap gun dealers.

The same way the DEA sometimes intentionally lets drugs get into the market. Which also sucks, but is not evidence that the DEA is pro-drug.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Actually I think MAGA would bitch about each and every thing President AOC did, just because it was her that did it. But that's a different point...

In other words, you don't have an answer regarding the actual point in question. Whether or not the throw-away reference to F&F was "off point"...your entire response is "off point".

[ducksalad]

In other words, the first part of my response was the literal and accurate answer to your question. Whether it's whacking some foreigner with a missile or slapping tariffs on China or pushing Israel to negotiate with radicals, with MAGA it's mostly about who did it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In other words, the first part of my response was the literal and accurate answer to your question.

LOL!

[M L]

I think you're probably right he was trying to make that mundane point but said it poorly.

I mean - I hope so! LOL.

[not guilty]

Politico has some interesting reporting on the mortgage contract which is the subject of the federal prosecution of Letitia James in Virginia. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/29/letitia-james-mortgage-contract-indictment-00625010

It appears that the contract expressly contemplated short term rentals of the property, provided that the borrower remained in control and did not hire a third party to manage the property:

POLITICO obtained James’ mortgage documents, including her signed “Second Home Rider” from the Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk’s Office. The rider, a standard addendum to mortgage contracts developed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, requires James to “maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals.” The idea is to restrict buyers’ ability to use a “second home” as an “investment property” — by hiring a management company and using it primarily to generate income — after obtaining the lower loan rates associated with houses purchased as vacation or “second” homes.

That final, three-word phrase in the rider — “including short-term rentals” — could be decisive. In plain English, the provision means that James is explicitly permitted to rent the place out periodically, so long as she remains in charge of matters such as the number of tenants and how they use the property, legal experts say. The contract’s restrictions bar James from giving “a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property.”

[dwb68]

Senate and house voted down Brazil tariffs. The Senate voted down the Canadian ones; the House is a closer vote (we'll see). The Chinese tariffs *would* survive a vote.

This is all bad news for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court tariff case. This proves Congress can act. It gives 6 justices cover to side with Trump.

They can say the President's power is at its zenith in foreign affairs and can regulate imports, especially with a hostile nation like China, but eventually it's a political question, so eventually the tariffs have to be ratified like a treaty. They can let the tariffs happen while punting the decision to Congress. So Congress... you're it!

[Life of Brian]

Senate and house voted down Brazil tariffs.

I don't see anywhere that the House took a vote (or even had a non-pro-forma session of any sort). Where did you see that?

[dwb68]

hmmmm.... I stand corrected. I thought the house took it up.

[Poxigah146]

How long before the Democrats start advocating to admit millions of Jamaicans as climate refugees? On a "temporary basis," of course.

[Estragon]

I guess I don’t get this one.

Even if Democrats would advocate for Jamaicans to be given temporary refuge in the US, would that really be so terrible? Jamaica was just hit by one of the most powerful hurricanes on record. ISTM that America— being one of the most powerful and richest nations in the history of the world— could see fit in its boundless munificence to temporarily shelter certain disaster-struck people from a (relatively close) neighbor in their time of need. Certainly there would be no concern about illegal immigration or overstaying given ICE’s new 4B budget and the policy of Don and co. What’s the problem here?

[Bunny495]

The problem is a massive national debt and an unsustainable trend line showing the debt increasing; I am not sure how long America will remain rich.

[BrotherMovesOn]

https://youtu.be/2KvNt5NG-GM?si=Nbfk7Hjmk0bS52oq

.

[Estragon]

Let me get this straight.

We can afford the ICE budget, 40B to Argentina, planes for Kristi Noem, and a new bunker. But that’s it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — Wrong time then to be doing new nuke testing. Nuke testing leads to more nuke weapons manufacturing, which leads to more national debt. During the first decades of the cold war, US expense for nuclear weapons manufacturing was so high it matched the entire accumulation of national debt. At one point almost 10% of national electrical generating capacity went to bomb making, while the nation went from a nuke weapons inventory in double digits, to multi-thousands. Without that, the nation would have run a balanced budget for years.

[Poxigah146]

No. We're bankrupt as is, and these "temporary" admissions are always permanent. And of course, you leftists will demand that any children they produce on U.S. soil while here "temporarily" should be citizens with all of the privileges of such.

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: "we" are not in fact bankrupt.

[Bunny495]

DN anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands how serious the current national debt is. They also understand that current spending trends under both the pubs and dems will lead to a disaster. We are borrowing money (by some estimates 42% of current spending is borrowed) to pay our bills. The result is inflation that is destroying the economy. Your bromance with fiat money ignores the fact that historically no country has survived for long after they went all in on fiat money.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — Fine. To correct the problem, tax people who have money. Do it for a long time. It took a lot of years to build up the debt, so it will take many years to unravel it.

But there is no way to do that with more debt, and no way to do it without either politically impossible cuts to social safety nets, or higher taxes on the minority of Americans who have all the disposable money. Which alternative are you calling for?

[Mr. Bumble]

As usual you're full of shit and yourself (same thing?)
9/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
9/30/2025 $37,637,553,494,935.61
Twenty five years is one generation.

[not guilty]

Will any Congressional committee take Jack Smith up on his offer to testify? https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/29/congress/senate-gop-blasts-jack-smith-00629073

Of are the Republicans in charge afraid he will make them look like fools to an even greater extent than they have shown themselves to be already?

[hobie]

Smith is basically saying he's willing to plead guilty right there before Congress. All they gotta do is swear him in.

[not guilty]

In addition to having decent legal chops himself, Jack Smith is represented by highly competent counsel from Covington & Burling. If there was any concern about him incriminating himself (as to actual, rather than contrived, misconduct), the offer to testify would likely not have been made.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not so great.
2012, John Edwards; acquitted.
2016, Bob McDonnell, overturned 8-0 by US Supreme Court
2017, Gold Bar Bob Menendez; mistrial
Not to mention the losses v. Trump.

[not guilty]

Bumble, what does any of that have to do with the likelihood of Jack Smith incriminating himself in testimony before a Congressional committee?

And Smith did not lose a damn thing to Trump on the merits. Judge Loose Cannon's ruling had nothing to do with the culpability or lack thereof of Donald Trump regarding the stolen documents. The D.C. prosecution and the appeal of the Florida dismissal each proceeded apace until Trump was elected to another term as President, at which time Justice Department policy (not law) required voluntary dismissal.

[Mr. Bumble]

"In addition to having decent legal chops himself, ..."
Questionable.

[not guilty]

John Edwards was acquitted on one count of a six count indictment. The jury were unable to reach verdicts on the remainder.

Bob McDonnell was found guilty based on the law as it stood at the time of trial. The reversal was because SCOTUS changed the prevailing interpretation of the statute after the fact.

The mistrial as to Sen. Menendez was because the jury were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

None of these is any reflection on Jack Smith's legal skills.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There was some discussion above about Bari Weiss's views. I'm looking these up on Wikipedia.

OK, here we go:

"In 2019, The Jerusalem Post named Weiss the seventh most influential Jew in the world." That puts her just below the inventor of the Rothschild Weather Machine. (kidding!)

"Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, Business Insider, and Al Jazeera. In a 2019 interview with Joe Rogan, she called herself a "left-leaning centrist", and she has also called herself a radical centrist. According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture" and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech". The New Republic described Weiss as "anti-woke, anti-trans, pro-Israel" and Vanity Fair has called her "a provocateur". The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said her work "doesn't lend itself easily to labels". The Times of Israel reported that her public fight with The New York Times made her a hero among some conservatives. According to The New York Times, when asked to share something that informed her values at a team retreat, she chose a clip from the show Transparent, which features a trans protagonist. Weiss reportedly chose it because "she never wanted to forget the humanity of those with whom she vehemently disagrees". She has been described as anti-trans for her editorial decisions regarding transgender issues at The Free Press."

"Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded that she "happily plead[s] guilty as charged"."

After a murderer killed Jews at the Tree of Life Synagogue, she was on Bill Maher to criticize Jews who supported Donald Trump.

"Weiss prefers not to label her sexual orientation. She has said that although she was once married to a man, she is mostly attracted to women. While attending Columbia University, she had an on-and-off relationship with comedian Kate McKinnon. Weiss also dated Ariel Beery, with whom she co-founded Columbians for Academic Freedom. From 2013 to 2016, Weiss was married to environmental engineer Jason Kass. Since 2018, she has been in a relationship with Nellie Bowles, a former tech reporter for The New York Times. They have since married [sic] and have two [adopted?] children."

If "the personal is political," as our feminist friends us to remind us, then her "lifestyle" [euphemistically so described] makes her a very modern and special kind of "conservative."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This is from the Jerusalem Post article I referred to above:

"As for Trump: People have rightly seized on Trump for the various antisemitic tropes he has trafficked in, the notion of dual loyalty, chief among them. All of that is bad. But what is far, far worse is the larger charge for which he stands guilty. And that is, as my colleague Bret Stephens has put it, the systemic removal of “the moral guardrails that keep bigotry down.” A president who suggests that Mexicans are rapists, that immigrants sully America, that some of us belong here less than others – that is a president who is very dangerous for Jews."

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/bari-weiss-the-lunatic-fringe-has-gone-mainstream-602819

Whether you agree with her statement or not, I'm curious that the discussion in thread seems to ignore it. The #Resistance type commenters, in particular, don't really seem to be warming to her despite her remark, if they even know of it.

[grb]

Hats off for the research, but you seem to miss the point. The analogy to Ms. Weiss would be someone who lists their conservative bona fides, but then stridently criticizes the Right with every political statement, position, or act.

In some cases, that would be a sign this "conservative" is interested in reforming his or her tribe. But very often it's just someone on the make looking to fashion a unique branding niche. That seems to be the case here, as there's no sign of any great depth or sincerity in any of the personas Weiss peddles.

David Nieporent made two astute comments about her above :

1. "She's not pro-Trump — she's just anti-anti-Trump."
2. "(She's) a self-proclaimed liberal with only conservative positions."

A fine line to walk, to be sure. But for now it seems to be a profitable position for someone looking for a strategy to make money in a crowded media market. In theory, she'll be able to walk away clean when Trump leaves the country & GOP in wreckage. I'm skeptical she can pull that off, but we'll see..

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Hats off for the research"

Which consisted of going to her Wikipedia article and looking up the Jerusalem Post article. That's all I had to do!

Is Weiss motivated solely by a desire to make money off of her political stances?

Let's just say this - if a "MAGA" commenter claimed that, say, Naomi Klein was trying to enrich herself by selling anti-capitalist screeds to gullible progressives, despite not believing what she said, Sarcastro or someone like that would rebuke that commenter for speculating without evidence. And hypothetical-Sarcastro (as opposed to real-Sarcastro) would have been right.

If you're going to float conspiracy theories, why not just cut to the chase and say Weiss is a Jewish Zionist manipulator? You'd have just as much evidence.

[grb]

The Margrave of Azilia : "If you're going to float conspiracy theories, why not just cut to the chase and say Weiss is a Jewish Zionist manipulator? You'd have just as much evidence."

Good Lord above! It didn't take much to push you into Loony Toons Land! I suspect we're in "every accusation is a confession" territory here. QAnon much, Margrave?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You put forward the idea that she must be in it for the money, I suggested that if you're going to float conspiracy theories without evidence, why not go the whole hog and endorse some anti-Semitic conspiracy idea?

"I suspect we're in "every accusation is a confession" territory here."

*You're* the one making the accusations here. You said someone with different ideas from you is in it for the money. So on the theory that "every accusation is a confession," you're confessing that *you* have adopted your ideas in order to profit from them, not because you believe them.

What am I supposedly confessing? That I'm an evil Zionist? I suppose that in the minds of people like you I *am* a Zionist because I believe in Israel's right to exist and its right to defend its existence against terrorists.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In fact, the idea of a Jewish media figure cynically exploiting her Gentile audience in order to make money sounds like an anti-Semitic trope. Yet you make precisely that accusation.

[Sarcastr0]

Profligate accusations of antisemitism cheapen the charge, and reveal you to be in bad faith.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm adopting his own reasoning of "every accusation is a confession."

You morons have gone insane.

And since "every accusation is a confession," what about your bad-faith attacks on someone who shares your anti-Trump views but doesn't stay on your insane progressive plantation?

[Sarcastr0]

Nope you made the accusation 6 hours ago before that was brought up.

She may claim liberal views but her journalism is not about that. It’s nigh invariably attacking the left.

Your evidence is misaligned.

Your rehabilitation tour is not going very well if you’ve devolved into throwing around accusations of antisemitism even to make some subsidiary point.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"rehabilitation tour"

Rehabilitation? You talk as if she's suffered some setback from which she needs to be rehabilitated.

Yet she's doing fine without my help. I'm simply pushing back at your retardation.

"you made the accusation 6 hours ago before that was brought up."

Nope, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of grb's evidence-free accusation by saying he could just as well call her a Zionist conspirator, based on the same quality of "evidence." After that, he took the bad-faith position that I was endorsing such a ridiculous charge myself, so I applied his "every accusation is a confession" logic.

"She may claim liberal views"

You're insinuating that she's faking her positions. She got gay-married, was that fake too?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And the idea that she can't be a leftist because she attacks leftists...let the whole long history of internecine left-wing feuding answer that claim.

She's denounced Trump as undermining the guardrails etc. Is that your idea of "attacking the left"?

I've shown her hosting Peggy Noonan and her attacks on the second Trump administration even before it took office. Is this "attacking the left" as well?

Your objection is that you don't think she should be attacking your particular leftist faction at all. It doesn't matter to you if she attacks Trump - in fact, you try to cover up that fact in order to promote your narrative.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — What is going on with Weiss reminds me of Roberts and the culture wars. Roberts has been trying for years to burnish a look of ideological balance by making some culture war concessions in his jurisprudence, while deciding every case with overt political content in favor of Republicans. Any case on districting, political finance, and even the 14A, goes to Republicans. Then R-leaning commenters point to the culture war stuff, and say, "See, Roberts takes it right down the middle."

I don't agree with splitting the liberal–conservative divide that way, so I don't buy that take for Roberts, or for Weiss.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know about Roberts, but I have been reading what Weiss actually wrote, not "paraphrases" based on the overheated fantasies of Internet randos.

The issue isn't whether I agree with everything she writes or says. The issue is whether I get to just make up shit and attribute it to her.

In particular, I note that there is an important link between her positions and the fact that she is a Jewish American (who grew up near a synagogue which was hit by a right-wing mass killer). She connects resurgent antisemitism on right and left with what she sees as a growing illiberalism which is dangerous alike to Jewish *and* non-Jewish Americans.

Do you agree with her dire warnings? You don't have to, but you certainly don't get to make up stories about how she's only attacking your side, or how she's simply faking her political positions in order to get money from the gullible. And now that I think about it, there *is* a whiff of anti-Semitism in the assertion that a prominent and successful Jewish American journalist is only doing what she does because she's in it for the money. That kind of accusation insinuates that with her concerns for the fate of her people at the hands of both left and right, she's simply exploiting her ethnicity in order to cash in on it.

[not guilty]

Margrave — What is going on with Weiss reminds me of Roberts and the culture wars. Roberts has been trying for years to burnish a look of ideological balance by making some culture war concessions in his jurisprudence, while deciding every case with overt political content in favor of Republicans. Any case on districting, political finance, and even the 14A, goes to Republicans. Then R-leaning commenters point to the culture war stuff, and say, "See, Roberts takes it right down the middle."

Huh? When has John Roberts ruled against Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war?

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124 (2007)? Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)? United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)? Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)? Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016)? Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)? United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. ____ (2025)?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"only conservative positions"

She believes in same-sex "marriage." Heck, she doesn't just believe in it, she's *done* it.

This single example is enough to rebut that claim that she has "*only* conservative positions."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In this article Weiss interviews Peggy Noonan, explaining that she (Weiss) is in agreement with Noonan ("Peggy is quite simply the master. She does what we try to do every day at The Free Press: tell the truth, make sense of things plainly and without pretension, frame the news in a way that helps the reader make sense of things and, ideally, put things in a historical context that gives the day-to-day depth and meaning.").

And (before the article hits the paywall) Noonan is fairly harsh on then President-elect Trump.

https://www.thefp.com/p/peggy-noonan-how-to-save-america

[David Nieporent]

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said her work "doesn't lend itself easily to labels".

The thing is, it does: she's anti-anti-Trump. It's a very simple label that encapsulates her current views. She Gertrudes¹ that she doesn't approve of everything Trump does, but she sorrowfully has to stand with him because liberals are worse.

¹I got this term from lawyer/blogger Scott Greenfield; I don't know who started using it, or if anyone else actually does. It derives from Gertrude's "The lady doth protest too much" in Hamlet; it's his label for the initial throatclearing before the "but" in a statement.

[Bwaaah]

She doesn't "stand with" Trump. Nor does she stridently stand against him. You could say she's not anti-Trump.

And that, to almost all Democrats and *you*, David, means she's "anti-anti-Trump." That's the spirit of the ol' line, "You're either for us, or you're against us."

You could be so much more compelling if you weren't so, so, so like you are.

[David Nieporent]

https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-free-press-passage-into-the-dark

[Bwaaah]

Yeah? I don't see anything of what you say in there.

You're not saying what Bari Weiss has said (or even indicated). You're saying what people, who for whatever reason, pretend she has said (as you do).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This whole conversation got me interested in Weiss's work, and I've seen her making *very* anti-Trump statements. I've been reading her interesting book How to Fight Antisemitism, and I'm guessing you *haven't* read it, because it attacks Trump.

But that isn't sufficient for the likes of you.

Because to your ilk, it's not enough to attack Trump, it is also necessary to swallow the whole witches' brew of toxic woke ideology. And if you don't you're soft on Trump, or a money-grubbing opportunist, or worse.

[not guilty]

No good will come of this. President Trump wrote on Truth Social:

The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice! Russia is second, and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years. Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115460423936412555

[Stephen Lathrop]

Money wasted, to set the stage to reignite an arms race which will waste far more money. For what? To make the world poorer, and marginally more dangerous. Only marginally more dangerous because present dangers are so extreme there is little room to make them worse.

When politicians in the 50s and 60s were doing that, they were without experience to guide clear thinking in a then-unprecedented situation. Not now. At least not for the world at large. For Trump? Yeah, thinking remains unprecedented.

[not guilty]

Politico reports that a federal judge in Seattle has ruled that a wide-ranging subpoena the Justice Department served in June on QueerDoc, a medical practice offering gender-affirming care online, cannot be enforced because the demand was not part of a legitimate law enforcement investigation. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/29/doj-subpoena-gender-affirming-care-ruling-00627891

QueerDoc provides referrals and information about surgery, but doesn’t offer any in-person care.

The order quashing the subpoena is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.350058/gov.uscourts.wawd.350058.27.0.pdf

[apedad]

Technical question....

Isn't a subpoena supposed to be approved by a court (not necessarily needing a judge's approval but a court clerk can process)?

I don't see that on the subpoena.

[David Nieporent]

Isn't a subpoena supposed to be approved by a court (not necessarily needing a judge's approval but a court clerk can process)?

No. Just as one example of when that's not the case, here's Fed. R. Civ. P. 45:

(3) Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena if the attorney is authorized to practice in the issuing court.

[Brett Bellmore]

Continuing the conversation:

"Sarcastr0
Are you honestly asking who but an antisemite might have an issue with the IDF these days?

That seems to require that if you don't endorse Israeli policies you hate the Jews.

Which is calling a shitload of American Jews antisemitic. I wouldn't go there were I you."

Me:
Yeah, Sarcastr0. I am.

A lot of antisemites lie to themselves about it, "I'm just anti-Israel!".

My father's generation did worse in Europe with less excuse, and we celebrate them, because even less excuse was enough excuse for more than Israel does.

If Mexico did half of what the Palestinians have done to Israel, only to us, we'd have run over them like a steam roller by now.

No country on Earth would be expected to have responded to October 7th with less than total war pursued to complete victory, except Israel. Because Israel is run by Jews.

Forget October 7th. The continual rocket launches would have been enough to justify turning Gaza into a parking lot, if they'd been landing in a country not run by Jews.

The left here in the US call everyone they'd like to punch a "Nazi", and in Hamas you have literal Nazis fucking torturing people to death, and you demand people not be so judgmental. Suck up to their apologists like Mamdani.

Yeah, this is driven by antisemitism. What else could explain this double standard?

And, can Jews be antisemitic? Sure. "Self hating" is a thing. Deflecting the antisemitism of political allies by proving you're not like those Jews...

Unlike "Christian" or "Muslim", "Jew" at once denotes both an ethnicity and a religion. That muddled things a lot.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll leave you to hold forth to the Jews in NYC that they're self-hating Hamas supporters.

Not much more needs to be said than this scattered Palestinians/Hamas/Muslims/Nazis/Mamdani ramble.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, on Oct 7th, Hamas invaded Israel, killing 1.19 people per 10k. Suppose Mexico invaded the US and killed 39,000 people in one day.

Think Mexico, the country, wouldn't be a smoking ruin? Look what we did in response to 9-11, and that was 'only' 3k dead.

Israel has experienced at least FIVE 9-11 scale attacks, proportionately, since 2000. Not counting Oct 7th!

I repeat: Any other country on Earth would have been expected to do more than Israel has, with much less provocation.

Israel's neighbors carry out GENOCIDE with less international criticism than Israel gets for ordinary military actions!

What explains this gross double standard if not antisemitism?

[Frank Drackman]

Eggs-zactly!!!

[Sarcastr0]

For all your recapitulating how bad October 7th was, you are still quite unclear on which groups specifically Jews must hate for them not to be self-hating Jews.

I'm also seeing some muddiness on how much loyalty American Jews must have to the current Israeli government to count as Real Jews.

You're very passionate that a lot of Jews are bad and wrong, but not very concrete on what you require of them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't have a bit of loyalty to Israel. All it takes to support their war with Hamas is not having a double standard.

[Sarcastr0]

And any Jews that don't agree with your take on Israel are self-hating.

Got it.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : " ....how much loyalty American Jews must have to the current Israeli government to count as Real Jews."

You don't even need to go there to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of Brett's slurs. By his standard, a massive percentage of Israel's Jews also don't count as "Real". I regularly read the Israeli newspapers and much of criticism he wants to tarnish as "antisemitism" can be found there as well. And I'm not talking Haaretz alone, but the Jerusalem Post & Times of Israel too. I wonder if Brett allows those Jews permission to criticize the Netanyahu government or war tactics of the IDF without losing their fundamental human legitimacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

At all costs you don't want to consider just how bad October 7th was, or compare Israel's response to it to our response to the 13 fold smaller in proportion 9-11.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say almost ever Jew agrees that October 7th was bad.

And you're really up your own ass if you think that America's response to 9-11 is universally held as good and proportionate.

[Brett Bellmore]

And most people agree that Israel is entitled as a country to respond to it in the same manner any other country would respond to an affront of that magnitude: Total warfare to complete victory.

[Sarcastr0]

What set of humans are you considering 'people' here?

[Brett Bellmore]

All of them.

It's generally accepted that if somebody launches a vicious attack on you, you can wage war on them. Who doesn't expect their own government to behave that way?

I'll say it again: Look at the way WE responded to 9-11. Israel had been through FIVE 9-11s before October 7th, which was 13 times bigger as a proportion of their population.

Compared to us, they've been restrained.

[Frank Drackman]

As bad as Hiroshima/Nagasaki were, "only" about 100,000 died from the explosions.
and maybe more surprisingly, only a few thousand died from acute Radiation Poisoning (it was 1945, "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" were way less destructive than any Fusion Bomb)
There's a lot of numbers thrown around about how many died later from radiation related cancers, ever been to Japan?? maybe the smoking/smoked fish/whiskey/having Cell phone surgically attached to your ear doesn't help.
OK, if I'd been at Hiroshima/Nagasaki I'd be smoking, eating smoked fish, and drinking whiskey too...
Cell Phone I'd rather carry, those Flip Phones are heavy.

Frank

[bernard11]

I'm puzzled by this whole discussion.

I disagree with Brett that criticism of Israel's government is necessarily antisemitic, though I don't doubt that a good bit of it is motivated by antisemitism. There have, after all, been attacks on American Jews motivated by Israel's actions. Not antisemitic?

OTOH, I wonder what Israel's critics think would have been an appropriate response to the 10/7 attack.

Suppose Netanyahu had said (as I think he should have) something like,

"We demand the return of the hostages and the handover of all those who participated in, planned, or ordered this criminal attack."

Now, first, this is surely a reasonable position to take. Free the kidnapped individuals, and turn over the rapists, murderers, and kidnappers and their bosses.

Second, of course Hamas would not comply. What would Israel be entitled to do then?

[Sarcastr0]

At least around here, and also on the more liberal boards I frequent, I don't know anyone who was against Israel having a military response to October 07.

I'm more poking Brett for gatekeeping who counts as a real Jew and who is self-hating.

[Bwaaah]

Bernard11: "Second, of course Hamas would not comply. What would Israel be entitled to do then?"

Stand down. Hurt nobody. File some kind of [useless] appeal with the U.N. Suck it up for a change. Give up their unjustly obtained Zionist homeland, handing it over to a more just and deserving "people." Eventually, maybe one day, they'll be a pathetic enough minority to be pitied [once again] by Democrats.

They would be entitled, as always, to not act so much like Jewwwws.

[grb]

bernard11 : "OTOH, I wonder what Israel's critics think would have been an appropriate response to the 10/7 attack."

I'm puzzled by your comment. Was dropping hundreds of 2000lb bombs with a kill radius of 400yds into one of the most densely packed urban areas worldwide appropriate? If so, would simply nuking Gaza altogether been appropriate?

I could come up with even more lurid scenarios, but assume you get the drift. When any criticism of Israeli actions is illegitimate because of "07Oct" or "antisemitism", then there is nothing the IDF can possibly do where you accept any objection. Which is what you seem to be saying : Israel was the victim of a horrible attack so Israel can't conceivably do anything wrong. Is that really your position?

Brett keeps asking what we did after 911. What we didn't do was kill tens of thousands of children. I've seen people claim Gaza was like the Second Battle of Fallujah in being urban combat against embedded insurgents. But that doesn't help the Israeli case, because the IDF killed many times more civilians, particularly in the wanton slaughter of the Gaza War's first months. That's what turned people's stomach against the IDF tactics and Netanyahu government. So, again, is there any conceivable thing Israel might do that you might conceivably find objectionable?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I disagree with Brett that criticism of Israel's government is necessarily antisemitic, though I don't doubt that a good bit of it is motivated by antisemitism. There have, after all, been attacks on American Jews motivated by Israel's actions. Not antisemitic?"

I think it's perfectly possible to criticize Israel's government and not be antisemitic. But, if you're criticizing Israel's government, and not criticizing Hamas about 50 times more? If you're criticizing Israel killing innocent shields, and not Hamas USING innocent shields?

Yeah, antisemitism.

"Was dropping hundreds of 2000lb bombs with a kill radius of 400yds into one of the most densely packed urban areas worldwide appropriate?"

Slept through WWII history, I take it? I said above, that with less provocation my father's generation did worse in Europe during WWII, and I meant it.

"Brett keeps asking what we did after 911. What we didn't do was kill tens of thousands of children."

Gullible much? Those figures come direct from Hamas.

Israel isn't doing this after 9-11. Israel suffered 9-11 five times between 2000 and Oct 7th.

Israel is doing this after 9-11 times 13 and hostages being tortured to death. They're doing this after something that made 9-11 look like a walk in the park.

I'm saying that Hamas is easily evil enough to get the full WWII treatment.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Slept through WWII history, I take it"

Perhaps you've been sleeping since WWII and haven't noticed nobody firebombs cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a single attack anymore. Nor, for that matter, are soldiers regularly given official permission to loot, rape, and murder with impunity after taking a city. These things still happen, of course, but are considered a crime - either by the controlling military authority or the world at large.

It's ironic : Absolutely nothing you could say would make the IDF's war crimes clearer than the appeal to historical practices now seen as crimes by the entire world.

Brett Bellmore : "Gullible much? Those figures come direct from Hamas."

Uh huh. Brett Weaseling Tactic #74. Tens of thousands of children died. If you can't deal with the number, evade the subject altogether. How many times have you done this? Taken a fact you don't want to face and claimed you don't have to deal with because it came from (insert excuse here). Why do all your precious beliefs force you to pretend so much?

Brett Bellmore : " ...something that made 9-11 look like a walk in the park."

This is such a bizarrely wacko statement!

Brett Bellmore : "....Hamas is easily evil...."

Consensus at last (for at least that part of the statement). But here's the problem : This country has any number of people - stereotypically dim-witted college kids - who believe Hamas are noble freedom fighters against evil. They are uninformed fools. But they have their counterpoint in people who think Israel a shining beacon of justice, freedom, and democracy. In fact, the country is a brutal totalitarian opressor, often guilty of pointless and extravagant cruelty to the subject population they're stealing from, acre by acre. That you hate the people under their jack boot doesn't make any of that go away. It's now been decades since the Israelis decided they want all of the Palestinian's land but don't want to give the people who always lived there any citizenship rights. People say the acceptance of slavery in the U.S. Constitution was a cancer that slowly ate away at the country, manifesting itself in seemingly unrelated ways. Well, I'm convinced the Israeli decision is a cancer eating at its society. Is Hamas much worse? Without question. But today's Israel is pretty damn bad also.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't get the need for "Coyotes", Human Traffickers like Kill-more Garcias.
Right now, you can go on the Delta website, buy a one way ticket from May-he-co City to JFK, Main Cabin $379, "Comfort" is $530, First Class $1062.
When you get to JFK declare for Asylum, then take an Uber to one of those Hotels they put the "Homeless" up in.
Actually, why even go through the "Asylum" charade??, when I went to Israel, all they did was stamp my Passport (now they require some kind of Visa you can do online), and say "Shalom"
OK, after a few weeks of me, an Asylum wasn't out of the question.
It they ask just say you're in the Big Apple to take in a show, check out the Met, watch a Healthcare CEO get Executed.....

Frank

[loki13]

Since no one bothers to look it up, I will go ahead and link it for you.

This is the amicus that prompted SCOTUS to ask for additional briefing. Again, props to Prof. Martin Lederman for bringing up the issue.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A443/380249/20251021211611551_25A443.amicus.msl.1021.pdf

Starts at p. 8.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, good link, and Chicago/LA/SF/Seattle/Portland are "rebelling" way more than the South did in 1860, except for the unpleasantness at Fort Sumter all the South was doing was trying to grow their Cotton.

[grb]

Every once & a while, someone should perform the public service of noting how pointless, useless, and meaningless every Frank Drackman comment is. Not - of course - as any kind of incentive. After all, he's just a troll. Being pointless, useless, and meaningless is his very life mission (with a lot of laughable Walter Mitty fantasies thrown in the mix).

[loki13]

Yeah, dunno. I used to read his comments because in between his incomprehensible (and offensive) trolls, he occasionally had a decent joke.

But when his brain broke and he just started s***posting the same comment over and over again after a certain event, I put him on ignore. Honestly, one of my better decisions.

[David Nieporent]

He is literally the only commenter here I have on ignore. I can handle the Nazis and the pathological liars and the MAGA (but I repeat myself), but his posts are just so incomprehensible that they're not even worth the time to scroll past.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're not only David Never-coherent but David Never-comprehending. I think it's the whole Left-handed thing, maybe hold my posts up to a mirror.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Knarf?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm like a retro virus, once I'm inserted into your DNA it's harder to get rid of than that Cat piss smell unaltered male cats leave to mark their territory.
I merely pointed out (correctly, I might add) that San Fran Sissy-Co/Seattle/Portland/Chicago/Charlotte/New Yawk 2025 are way more violent than any Confederate City in 1860.
And better Walter Mitty than Richard Cory, so sad that my everyday life is more interesting than your boring existence.

Frank

[loki13]

Anyway, one of the absolutely brilliant things about Lederman's argument (which based on my limited research on it appears to be accurate, although I eagerly await to see what others will turn up to counter it) is that it is exactly the type of textualist AND minimalist argument that would appeal to a textualist and conservative judge who might be "Yay unitary executive" but also ... somewhat concerned about this particular power grab, given the nation's long-standing distrust of the deployment of the military on domestic soil (and for very good reason) as well as the division between the military (regular forces) and civilian law enforcement.

It shows the textual hook in the statute that ties into this particular balance between Congressional control over the military in Art. I and the Executive's authority as CiC in Art. II.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that is an intimidatingly good brief. Thorough, well-organized, but also readable.

The nut:

Because President Trump has not used regular military forces to assist or protect ICE in the Chicago area, he cannot—and he has not—determined that the Executive Branch would be “unable” to execute any federal laws with the aid of such regular military forces. Moreover, on any plausible understanding of what it means to be “unable” to execute federal laws, it is difficult to imagine that the President would be “unable” to ensure faithful execution of those laws if he were to first deploy regular military forces to assist ICE, assuming a sufficient number of such forces were available to perform that function.

[loki13]

Agreed. The best thing about the argument presented in the brief was that when I was finished reading it, I was like, "How could I have ever glossed over 'regular forces' before ... and how could it possibly mean anything else?"

That's some power.

[Sarcastr0]

It also shows the utility of an academic amicus.

[loki13]

I originally put in some type of snarky remark about law professor amicus briefs and that this is the "exception that proves the rule," but removed it because this deserved no back-handed compliment.

Look, who know how this SCOTUS will rule, or what the DOJ is going to dig up now that they have to brief the issue - I can't wait to read it. What I do know is that if SCOTUS does end up making a ruling based on this issue ... given that this was raised by this amicus, and that it prompted additional briefing, and ... that it's kind of super important and relevant to what's going on, this might go down in the amicus hall of fame. Don't want to jinx it (especially with this SCOTUS) but if it makes it into the opinion of the court as a dispositive issues, I think we can call this type of amicus a "Lederman Brief"* from now on.

*Apologies to the Brandeis Brief, which has been disfavored for some time and especially so with this Court. Facts, shmacts.

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. And it should also be a reminder — to lawyers especially, but to everyone — about not making assumptions. I — like probably you — just skipped right over that to focus on the issue of "unable," which seemed like the key, interesting question. It never occurred to me to question what those two words referred to.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and does it matter?

Almost the entire modern federal government rests on interpretations of the Constitution that are batshit crazy. For instance, the commerce clause has, effectively, been reduced to "To regulate;".

Constitutional law has been Calvinball since at least FDR. And every time somebody rolls a little of it a tiny way back the left absolutely freaks.

You think one side can play Calvinball, and everybody won't eventually end up playing Calvinball?

[Frank Drackman]

I'd love to see Speaker Johnson sing the "I'm very sorry song"
wearing a regulation "Calvin-Ball" Black mask of course.

Frank

[loki13]

...how do you say, "I did not bother reading something, or understanding what people are talking about," without actually saying it?

*sigh* We are discussing a STATUTE, Brett. A STATUTE. While we are all aware of how you apply BrettLaw to the Constitution, Constitutional Law is a little different than interpreting statutes for ... oh jeez, I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm not going to bother when it doesn't matter.

But anyway, thanks for playing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody doesn't grasp that, if you're playing Calvinball, that's what you're playing.

[loki13]

*whoosh*

If you had anything substantive to say, you'd say it.

So at this point, it's obvious that you haven't read the argument. Or, in the VERY UNLIKELY circumstance that you happened to read it, and the even unlikelier circumstance that you understood what you read, you are left with your usual meaningless retort of, "At some point, something happened that doesn't make sense in the world of BrettLaw. So from this point forward, I will argue that everything that the OTHER SIDE does is contrary to BrettLaw, and everything MY SIDE does is okay because the OTHER SIDE doesn't follow BrettLaw, and therefore MY SIDE doesn't have to follow any kind of law."

Which is fine, if you're into nihilism and know-nothingism, which.... I mean, honestly? Pretty much a good summary of Trumpism (aka, the modern GOP).

[David Nieporent]

Since no one bothers to look it up, I will go ahead and link it for you.

Hey, I looked it up! No, actually, I didn't, so thanks for the link.

(I often do, but not in this instance.)

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, loki13.

Professor Lederman's brief is a tour-de-force.

[Frank Drackman]

Just Checked, Advance purchase, ATL-TLV (with one hour layover in CDG, about as long as I'd want to spend in Paris now a days) round trip $7662
OK, that's for First Class, (I use my miles) you Plebians only pay $1421 for your bench in Steerage.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it.
New Jersey's former "Gay American" governor is back into politics, running for mayor of Jersey City (and leading in the polls).

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't Phil Leotardo have him rubbed out?

[loki13]

One more thing for this thread-

The Abrego Garcia litigation (in general, but more specifically the vindicative prosecution motion) is going so badly for the DOJ, and all of their stupid games have backfired so spectacularly ...

I predict that sometime in the not-too-distant future, they will extricate themselves from this mess (some deal involving him staying here or going to Costa Rica etc.) soon before the documents produced and the depositions produce any more damning revelations.

ETA- you know it's getting bad when the other side is actually using the presumption of regularity for the DOJ to MOCK YOU in filings. And ... it's completely warranted.

[grb]

"Stupid Games" is precisely the description. Garcia was willing to accept deportation to Costa Rica. The country was willing to take him. But out of petty malicious spite, the Trump administration is determined to send him to an African country and has wasted months trying to find one. Meanwhile, every time the DOJ shows up in court re Garcia, it's a bunglefest embarrassing fiasco.

I guess this mess was inevitable after Trump humiliated himself with a doctored photo of Garcia's knuckles. When your country is led by a brain-damaged two-year-old, you can expect childish irresponsibility and tantrums as a result.

[loki13]

Well, I think it goes to show that the administration is ruled by pettiness, vindictiveness, and bullying.

And more often than not, it gets its way. And when it doesn't, it just keeps doubling down.

The thing is- a lot of targets acceded to the bullying because ... well, they figured it's better to give in because they didn't want to deal with the awesome and terrible power of the federal government, and thought, "Hey, if I give the bully my lunch money today, he will leave me alone." But as we have learned- he will just come back tomorrow, and demand more.

The thing is ... for those who stand up to the bully? It sucks. Because the bully lies, the bully cheats, and the bully lashes out. But over time ... the lies, the cheating, and the lashing out don't actually help the bully, and the long record comes back to haunt him.

I remain hopeful that more companies and institutions (save those that directly profit or grift from this administration, like ALLEGEDLY the Ellisions, Thiel, etc.) see that appeasement today just leads to greater extortionate demands tomorrow. I think we've seen a little of that, but we need to see more or it will be a long ... oh jeez, more than three years.

[Frank Drackman]

Is there something wrong with Africa??

[Bwaaah]

In the last open thread, Magister claimed (without any attempt at substantiation) that the growth in U.S. health care costs went from 6.9% annual growth before Obamacare to 4.3% afterward. Sarcastr0 jumped on board in agreement, but only arguing that no substantiation should be required for such a "non-contentious thing."

I attempted to come up with what those pre/post Obamacare numbers might be. I turned to this historical perspective from CMS (from this page) which has annual data going back to 1960 (adjusted to current dollars).

I picked what I though was a statistically significant number of years before and after the ACA to come up with averages. (I made no attempt to game the numbers.) For statistical significance, I [arbitrarily] decided to use an 8 year span, i.e. 8 years before ACA and 8 years after. I used 2014 as the first year of the ACA, as that is when the act significantly went into effect. (I chose to leave 2020 out of the 8 year average since it was a high anomaly, and instead dropped it and added 2022 as an eighth year for the post-ACA averages.)

The average annual increase of National Health Expenditures in the 8 years ending 2013 was 4.4%. In the [adjusted] 8 years after it was 4.6%. As for annual dollars per capita, it was $8,235 before and $11,150 after.

[Absaroka]

I went a'googling. I think his source is this article in the Atlantic which says "National health spending went from growing 6.9 percent a year before the law passed to 4.3 percent a year after.".

I'm not sure where that article got that number. I followed the first link after that claim, where it says "The rate of inflation in the health-care sector slowed", but that article doesn't have those numbers that I see.

I don't see any obvious bend points in e.g. the graphs in this page.

[Bwaaah]

Ah. To use only one year of data for comparison would give you a short, very noise-prone, almost useless basis for rendering a statistically meaningful evaluation.

Here are the annual numbers from the CMS data I cited above:
2008: 4.2
2009: 3.8
2010: 3.9
2011: 3.4
2012: 4.0
2013: 2.6
2014: 5.1
2015: 5.4
2016: 4.5
2017: 4.2
2018: 4.6
2019: 4.4
2020: 10.4
2021: 4.2
2022: 4.6

[Magister]

A bit dumb to think that "6.9 percent a year" and "4.3 percent a year" must mean each only for one year. But it's Bwaah.

And no, Absaroka, that was not my source. Good luck in your remedial Googling class!

[Bwaaah]

Excellent follow-up! You nailed it!

[Magister]

Oh no, Bwaah joined the ranks of "I did my own research", home of anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists!

Apparently none of you searched Google for something as simple as: Did the ACA bend the cost curve. Bwaah of course was the commenter who said

Magister made a mistake and got the numbers reversed. It was 4.3% before, and 6.9% after.

No apology for that lie yet.

Bwaah's own research project fails from cherry picking, despite a possibly sincere denial of cherry picking; he attributes the years from 2010 to 2014 to pre-ACA, despite the ACA being passed in 2010 and implementing a number of its cost saving features then. The part that was implemented in 2014 increased health care expenditures by virtue of getting insurance for many previously uninsured people.

I am astonished that none of my fan club, nor Absaroka, were able to find an article that reported the two percentages I gave were from 2000 to 2009 (6.9%) and from 2010 to 2018 (4.3%). This is a very disappointing result, far below the obfuscation and excuses I expected.

[Bwaaah]

Nice!

[Frank Drackman]

Love how the Marxist Stream Media is treating the coming 1 year anniversary of Common-Law's Erection like it was JFK's murder, 9-11, Challenger Explosion all in one (She did sort of fly her cam-pain into a building)
Oh wait, she didn't win?!?!?!?!??! She was 15 points ahead in Iowa!! 2 points ahead in Montana, Alaska is "Close", Florida is "Too Close to Call!!!!" even Texas might "Be in Play!!!!"
Not even a year yet, but remember all of the "how will Washington handle a "First Gentleman"????"

Frank

[M L]

WAPO blames Dems for shutdown.

Seems like end is near?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/29/shutdown-snap-elections-food-stamp-government/

"Save the debate for another day about whether too many people qualify for food stamps, which have become significantly more generous over the years. Keeping the government open should be separated from policy disputes about how to spend taxpayer money. It is wrong that Democrats have held the government hostage for a month in hopes of extending costly Obamacare subsidies, just as it was for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to shut down the government in 2013 for 16 days in a bid to defund the Affordable Care Act altogether."

[grb]

M L : "Seems like end is near?"

Nope. Just Bezos giving Trump's shoe leather a good tongue polish.

[Sarcastr0]

ML hasn't been paying attention to happenings around the WaPo recently.

Good news, ML you'll be able to cite their editorials a lot more often! Not that anyone else will take them for authority, but I'm sure you'll pretend they're doing an admission against interest for years to come.

[Bwaaah]

It ain't over 'til the Gray Lady sings. Or someone like a George Clooney.