Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

What will today's Open Thread bring?
Inquiring minds want to know.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Mad Magazine used to say,
"The Usual Gang of Idiots"

[Moderation4ever]

Are you including yourself?

[Frank Drackman]

Hold on a second, the Jerk Store's calling.
Oh, it's for you!

[Moderation4ever]

We are sensitive, hey I'm in the group you called idiots, you should do the same.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dude, his wife’s in a coma.

[Bwaaah]

+1 to Drackman for the point, you for the assist, and me, a laughing idiot.

[ReaderY]

One of the remarkable features of the Supreme Court tariff cases being argued Wednesday is thT not only have the cases been brought mostly by states and small businesses. Various activist groups, professors, and the Chanber of Commerce are filing briefs. But large businesses not only haven’t, they have largely remained silent on the matter, initiating no public relations campaign, lobbying, etc.

This suggests a huge change in our polity despite, noninally, no change in formal law. Have large businesses been intimidated into silence out of fear of what Mr. Trump might do to them to retaliate? If so, that would be a sea change in sociopolitical climate from the more open and outspoken society we once had.

[not guilty]

United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge on the District of Columbia District Court, has issued a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of Section 2(a) of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,248, including taking any action based on the Executive Order to modify the content of the Federal Form to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279032/gov.uscourts.dcd.279032.218.0_1.pdf

The Court ruled that issuance of the purported executive order violated the constitutional separation of powers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Impeach the Delta Charlie.

[Mr. Bumble]

You need to stop the bullshyte and be-clowning yourself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We really do need to impeach a few of these schmucks.

[Frank Drackman]

They can't get 60 votes to pay Air Traffic Controllers, and the only reason Reagan National exists is so these (Redacted) don't have to take an hour ride (that they're not paying for) to Dulles, and you think you'll get 67 votes to impeach a judge??(I know impeaching is just the House voting to bring charges, but if you're going to use it incorrectly so can I)
Oh, the "Process is the Punishment"?? I get it, so the "Impeached" Judges go broke paying Attorney's fees, good thing there aren't organizations that would foot the bill themselves.
Like the great Clay Kershaw, it's time for you to hang up your spikes (does he get a full World Series share?? with a 15.43 ERA?)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Think of it as a strongly worded reversal and public humiliation.

Forget impartial jury -- Ted Cruz is already talking about doing it so that he can join the prosecution. Then you've got Kennedy from LA who is a lawyer with a grad degree from Oxford and the Senior Status Judge may decide to enjoy retirement.

Question: What happens if a Senior Status Judge IS impeached and convicted? She'd lose her pension, right? Yet she can't immediately retire to end it because she already IS retired.

And you'd only have to impeach a few to clean up the rest.

[Poxigah146]

This piece of shit upheld D.C.'s "may issue" no issue gun permits, she enjoined a rule change to allow people to carry guns in national parks on the grounds that there was no environmental review, she gave years in jail to peaceful protesters outside of abortion clinics for so called FACE violations, and that's just what I can see on Wikipedia.

This cunt belongs in a concentration camp.

[Malika la Maize]

“and that's just what I can see on Wikipedia.

This cunt belongs in a concentration camp.”

Sign o’the times!

[Frank Drackman]

Great Album, AND Movie, which I saw on the Big Screen in 1987 (still have a well worn VHS tape, AND an unopened PAL Version I bought in Germany in the 90's)
Lot of deep meanings in those lyrics, future predictions, Prince was a regular Stradivarius.
Died from Counterfeit Fent-a-nol Overdose, like Floyd George (and in Minnesota also)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The clock stopped twice here. Prince was a musical genius and that was probably his best work.

[not guilty]

Poxigah146, have you read the District Court opinion that I linked to? Yes or no?

What, if anything, do you claim that Judge Kollar-Kotelly got wrong here?

[Poxigah146]

No, I didn't read it. The fact that she's a woman with a hyphenated last name appointed by Slick Willy tells me all I need to know.

[not guilty]

Ah, yes. "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise", as Thomas Gray wrote in his 1742 poem, "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College".

"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18 (RSV).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, business school trained managers everywhere: Far better to be wrong in plentiful company than to be right and alone.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Better question is what she got correct?

NG - Can you tell everyone what constitutional provision allows a non citizen to vote in a US election?

[Glaucomatose]

NG - Can you tell everyone what constitutional provision allows a non citizen to vote in a US election?

It’s the one right after the one that gives the President the power to dictate to states how they run their elections.

[not guilty]

"NG - Can you tell everyone what constitutional provision allows a non citizen to vote in a US election?"

That presupposes a fact not in evidence.

Read the fricking opinion. The Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the power to regulate federal elections.

Under the Voter Qualifications Clause, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives must be elected by voters who “have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. The Seventeenth Amendment likewise prescribes that voters for U.S. Senators “shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

The Elections Clause provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Under the Elections Clause, the States prescribe regulations in the first instance, “but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Put differently, the Elections Clause “grants Congress ‘the power to override state regulations’ by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, binding on the States.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997), quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 832-833 (1995).

To quote page 8 of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's opinion, "The States have initial authority to regulate elections. Congress has supervisory
authority over those regulations. The President does not feature at all."

Congress by statute has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections, per 18 U.S.C. § 611(a), which provides:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

Some states permit noncitizens to vote in state or local elections. https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

[Joe_dallas]

Page 4 of opinion
Although States determine voter-eligibility requirements, their discretion to do so is
restricted by the Constitution itself. E.g., U.S. Const. amend. XIX (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex.”).

The right of NON-Citizens is not there

NG - can you point to a statute that prohibits the citizen question on the form?

[David Nieporent]

NG - can you point to a statute that prohibits the citizen question on the form?

Maybe you should have read past page 4 of the 81-page opinion, because the relevant statutes are identified and described in detail.

[Joe_dallas]

Congress’s stated purposes in enacting the NVRA included “establish[ing] procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” helping officials at all levels of government implement the Act’s requirements “in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office,” “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process,” and ensuring the maintenance of “accurate and correct voter registration rolls.” See Id.

[Joe_dallas]

52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1). The state-specific instructions must “specif[y] each eligibility requirement (including citizenship)” set by state law

[not guilty]

"52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1). The state-specific instructions must “specif[y] each eligibility requirement (including citizenship)” set by state law"

Wrong. There is no such language in subsection (b)(1). (Language similar to that quoted by Joe_dallas does appear in a different subsection.) Subsection (b) in its entirety reads:

(b) Contents of mail voter registration form
The mail voter registration form developed under subsection (a)(2)—

(1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;
(2) shall include a statement that—

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);
(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and
(C) the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;

(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and
(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application—

(i) the information required in section 20507(a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;
(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and
(iii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.

Some states permit noncitizens to vote in state and/or local elections; other states do not. https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States It is appropriate that the form developed by the Election Assistance Commission informs a registrant which elections (s)he is allowed to vote in and which (s)he is not -- the latter category including federal elections per 18 U.S.C. § 611.

In any event, none of that is germane to the issues decided by Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in that § 20508(a) assigns responsibility for the form to the Election Assistance Commission -- not to the President.

[Joe_dallas]

The statute doesnt bar / prohibit the citizenship question,
Is the election assistance commission of executive branch or congressional branch. If executive branch, then the president does have the authority, if congressional branch, then there is separation of powers problem

[Joe_dallas]

NG's citation includes:

"(2) shall include a statement that—

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

"Including citizenship" -

[not guilty]

Read the opinion. The statutes discussed therein are enactments of the Congress. The President is without authority to dictate the contents of the federal “mail voter registration form.

No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Trump v. United States, No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 219 L.Ed.2d 991 (2024), quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

[Joe_dallas]

52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1). (1)may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;
(2)shall include a statement that—
(A)specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas has a commenting shtick. Joe makes all language published everywhere relevant to all controversies considered anywhere. He learned to do that while insisting on novel meanings for the Second Amendment.

In fairness, Joe_dallas merely imitates a similarly addled Supreme Court justice, but in reverse. Clarence Thomas insists on irrelevance for most language published anywhere. Thomas does not want to judge all the language of history. Thomas judges what language all history allows.

[Krayt]

Read the fricking opinion. The Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the power to regulate federal elections.

And yet, Ohio's legislature reviewed drop boxes in a context of Covid, and were overruled by the governor and the federal judiciary.

These principles are tools to be used or discarded at whim.

[Nelson]

Well, of course the Ohio governor isn’t a State official. Oh, right.

And the governor is the executive of Ohio which, in the view of the right, means that they cannot be restrained by anyone. Or does the only apply to the President? Correction: this President.

And adjudicating disputes is literally what the judiciary is for. I realize that the right hates the idea of checks and balances, but this is ridiculous.

Why don’t you just say that the President can dictate anything to anyone and cannot be restrained by either States or the Judiciary or the Legislative? At least that would be honest.

[David Nieporent]

NG - Can you tell everyone what constitutional provision allows a non citizen to vote in a US election?

Can you tell anyone where you think her ruling has anything to do with allowing non-citizens to vote?

[Mr. Bumble]

By default in not allowing for proof of citizenship to register to vote?

[David Nieporent]

Does it remain illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections after her ruling? Yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, it remains illegal for a non-citizen to vote irrespective of her ruling. The problem is if they do their illegal vote is counted which is why no one should not be allowed to register who cannot prove citizenship.

[Nelson]

And yet every time someone has tried to find these illegal voters, they fail miserably. Literally no one has ever managed to identify any impact, nor even succeeded in identifying significant (or even insignificant) numbers of illegal immigrants voting in elections. Ever.

Kris Kobach, who for decades has insisted that illegal voters were legion, launched a widespread investigation, completely supported by the government, in Kansas and found … five illegal voters. Not five thousand, not five hundred. Five. As in a handful.

https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial

Illegal immigrant voters is literally not a statistically noticeable number of voters, never mind an actual problem, never mind an impact on elections. When someone who desperately wants to find illegal immigrant voters can only find 5, total, over 40 years, people who aren’t Pavlovian partisans acknowledge that it isn’t a real problem.

Guess what Kobach did? The same thing as Trump and MAGA. Doubled down on stupid.

[Nelson]

I would note that there were one fewer illegal voters who supported Trump in The Villages in 2020 than there have been in the entire state of Kansas in 40 years.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fourth-florida-the-villages-resident-accused-of-voter-fraud

[bernard11]

Can you tell us what provision empowers the President to set voting requirements?

What happened to originalism, Joe? Or is it an argument of convenience, as I think?

[David Nieporent]

One thing that's not surprising, but that Brett Bellmore may want to note, is that the court did not buy the administration's argument that the EO's perfunctory savings clause — that the order "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law" — was sufficient to negate the order itself. If an order requires something lawful and something unlawful, then a savings clause may protect the first part. Or if there are two or more ways to do something, at least one of which is lawful and at least one of which is unlawful, a savings clause may require review of the ultimate policy to see which approach was chosen before a court may intervene. But if an order specifically requires something unlawful, the administration can't claim that the savings clause makes it uncertain whether that thing will be lawful.

[grb]

What does a guy have to do to be first around here?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wake up earlier or go to bed later.
An interesting article on sleep.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-used-to-sleep-twice-every-night-heres-why-it-vanished

[Dr. Ed 2]

People used to semi-hibernate in winter.
But you had to get up to stoke the fire.

[Nelson]

Given the average age of MAGA supporters and the frequency at which the elderly get up to pee every night, you’d think the Trumpkins would always post first. What else would they do on the toilet waiting for gravity to help them pee?

[santamonica811]

On Saturday, I went to a friend's house, to celebrate her birthday a day early. A day early for her birthday, a day late for Halloween, just on time for Día de los Muertos. Good food, good conversation, etc.. It was also the 7th game of the World Series. In keeping with gender stereotypes; she could not have been less interested, while I and a few others were deeply invested. (I was going to TiVo the game, so I didn't care about "missing" the game live.) But a compromise was reached . . . the game would be on, in a room away from the food, with the sound off. BUT . . . as it turned out, the game WAS. SO. EXCITING. It sucked everyone in. So, for the last 4 innings, the dining room emptied out, and everyone came into the living room. Then the sound was turned on. And, fortunately, there were a few Toronto fans, mixed in with the mass of Dodgers fans. So, the next 90 minutes were a blur of highs and lows, with everything wonderful about sports bringing everyone together. I'd say that it was the most exciting World Series game I have ever seen. Except . . . there was that 18 inning drama just a few days ago. But this was a Game Seven, so maybe this one did top that earlier one. What was funny was--after the game was over and we were all still shaking and giddy with excitement and joy--we were trying to explain to our (still bored) hostess why we were so excited about a damned baseball game. "You could just read the score in tomorrow's paper." was her point. Trying to explain the excitement of watching sports to a non-sports-fan is like trying to explain a sunset to a blind person. I mean; you can try, but it's never gonna fully land. If you enjoy baseball at all; I hope you managed to watch at least a few of the World Series games . . . there were some really nail-biting and dramatic moments. And I don't think you have to be an LA or a Toronto fan to have really enjoyed this particular series.

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like I'm the only one to appreciate it, but Game 7 had several "Golden Pitches" (OK, they can only occur in a Game 7) first ones since 2016, (in all World Series history they've only occurred in 1912, 1926, 1962, 1972, 1997, 2001, 2014 and 2016, less often than Total Solar Eclipses.
Even rarer are the teams 1 pitch (did you get that, 1 Pitch, 1 PITCH, 1 EFFING PITCH!!!) from winning the series and end up losing, only ones I can find are the 86' Red Sox (Buckner's still trying to get down for that ground ball) and 11' Rangers

Frank

[wvattorney13]

The 86 Red Sox had a TON of pitches where they could have won it in the bottom of the 10th game 6. But the Buckner ball pitch was not one of them. The game was tied when the ball was hit.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, I should have known that one, I Prostate myself before your Superior Baseball knowledge! Seriously, I was a Billy-Buck (HT V. Scully) fan back to his Dodger days, and I blame Steve Garvey for the 86' WS Error. (If you look hard enough Steve Garvey's responsible for most of the misery in the World)
Billy Buck's, being a Lefty, natural position was First Base (although he was a great 3-Sport Ath-uh-lete,(CA All-state Receiver) even had a Football Offer from Arizona State)
BUT, Steve Garvey came up at the same time, with those Popeye Biceps threw about as well as Stevie Nicks, couldn't play 3rd, even 2d, so they put him at the 1 position he could play, First Base (HT B. Abbott) But he could hit, and if you can hit, they'll find a spot for you. (no DH in the National League back then)
Forcing Buckner to the outfield, which he played well, until 1975 when he caught his spike in the chain link fence at Candlestick (yes, some teams still had chain link outfield fences in 1975) incurring a fracture/sprain that he continued to play with, undergoing surgery in the off season,
and THAT's why he missed that Grounder in 1986,
Steve Garvey.

Frank

[bernard11]

Game 7 was great baseball.

One key to baseball's appeal is the constant buildup and release of tension. Close game, runners on base, and it takes a few pitches, maybe a lot, to resolve things.

Frank's "Golden Pitches," a phrase I've never run into before, (Thanks, Frank) are part of this.

[Kazinski]

Here is a hypothetical:

Imagine there is alleged unlawful resistance to lawful government activity, whether its as mundane as immigration enforcement, or as high profile as certifying the results of a presidential election. And in both public statements and actions several Senators and Congressmen have shown sympathy towards the unlawful resisters, whether making phone calls to state elections officials, or impeding immigration officials at immigration facilities.

At what point would the FBI or DOJ be justified in issuing subpoenas to the communications providers, accompanied by gag orders to not disclose the existence of the subpoenas to the suspect Senators or Congessmen?

Are we there yet, or should there be more than just mere suspicion of collusion before the executive starts surveilling elected officials or their staff?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Marsha Blackburn is suing.
https://tennesseestar.com/news/sen-marsha-blackburn-to-sue-jack-smith-biden-doj-officials-after-calling-for-reckoning-over-fbi-surveillance/tpappert/2025/10/22/

As I understand it, her rationale is that no reasonable person would have thought that her presence there that day -- to perform a Constitutionally mandated task -- could possibly constitute probably cause to suspect a crime.

As a resident of Tennessee, she will be able to sue in Nashville (?), where intellectual property is taken seriously. This could get interesting.

And rumor has it that the FBI is investigating all of this...

[not guilty]

Do you have a link to any complaint that has been filed? Whom does she claim is suable, and on what legal theory?

I don't know how collection of telephone metadata checks pursuant to a facially valid subpoena, without more, is arguably tortious. It is neither a search nor a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. If the content of telephone conversations were intercepted without a warrant, that could violate a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2511), but there is no indication that that is the case here. "Probably [sic] cause to suspect a crime" is not required.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is not governed by the plaintiff's residence. Subsection (b) thereof provides:

(b)Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought in—

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

[William of Brooklyn]

But was it a "facially valid subpoena"? Isn't the requirement tied, at a minimum, to representations made by a "attorney for the government" under 3123? And don't we already have a ruling, not overturned, that Jack Smith was not that?

[not guilty]

"But was it a "facially valid subpoena"? Isn't the requirement tied, at a minimum, to representations made by a "attorney for the government" under 3123? And don't we already have a ruling, not overturned, that Jack Smith was not that?"

That is one stinky red herring. Judge Loose Cannon's opinion is an outlier, and it is of no precedential value whatsoever. That opinion flagrantly contravenes United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974), which expressly affirmed the authority of the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533 ("Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.") The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has opined in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019) -- which is binding precedent in the District of Columbia -- as follows:

The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice ("the Department"). 28 U.S.C. § 503. The Attorney General must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Id. Congress also created the position of Deputy Attorney General, who also must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Id. § 504. Congress has "vested" in the Attorney General virtually "[a]ll functions of other officers of the Department," id. § 509, and has empowered the Attorney General to authorize other Department officials to perform the functions of the Attorney General, id. § 510. Congress has also authorized the Attorney General to commission attorneys "specially retained under the authority of the Department" as "special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney," id. § 515(b), and provided "any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal ... which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct," id. § 515(a). Congress has also provided for the Attorney General to "appoint officials ... to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States." Id. § 533(1). These statutes authorize the Attorney General to appoint special counsels and define their duties. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974).

916 F.3d at 1049-1050.

[kramartini]

The problem is that § 533 does not authorize the hiring of attorneys to represent the government in court, but rather authorizes the hiring of officials (FBI agents) to conduct law enforcement operations.

[David Nieporent]

§ 533 does not mention the FBI, and specifically discusses prosecution, not merely "law enforcement operations."

[wvattorney13]

That's too far of a bottom to go down to. Even if we assume for the purposes of argument that Jack Smith was improperly appointed and that is upheld somehow (it's moot so it won't be litigated) it doesn't follow that literally everything he touched will now be tainted with illegality.

Under your theory, everyone involved with the subpoenas could be jailed for peddling "false" government documents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA -- but when a senator's hometown newspaper says she's gonna file, well...

"or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated"

A cell phone with a TN area code is technically located in TN.

[David Nieporent]

IANAA -- but when a senator's hometown newspaper says she's gonna file, well...

That is not a senator's hometown newspaper — it's an (as we discussed previously) astroturfed website — and it doesn't say anything anyway; it just quotes her.

[not guilty]

The phone itself is not "property that is the subject of the action" at all, let alone "a substantial part" thereof.

And the Tennessee Star is not a newspaper at all. The daily newspaper serving Senator Blackburn's hometown is The Tennessean.

[David Nieporent]

A cell phone with a TN area code is technically located in TN.

I neglected to address this howler. A cell phone with a TN area code is technically located… wherever it is actually located. To be clear, where her cell phone is located has nothing to do with anything — but even if it were relevant, Dr. Ed's claim is typical Dr. Edism.

[David Nieporent]

Marsha Blackburn is suing.

No, Marsha Blackburn is talking about suing. Your use of the present progressive tense is mistaken.

As I understand it, her rationale is that no reasonable person would have thought that her presence there that day -- to perform a Constitutionally mandated task -- could possibly constitute probably cause to suspect a crime.

You don't understand it. Or she doesn't. Or — likely — both. First, "her presence" was not the basis for the investigation; we know that because the investigation focused on only a handful of the people present. Second, probable cause is not the applicable standard.

As a resident of Tennessee, she will be able to sue in Nashville (?), where intellectual property is taken seriously.

Her residence is irrelevant; it's the defendants' residence or conduct that determines where a suit can be brought. And of course this has nothing of any sort to do with intellectual property, even if there were any basis for your claim.

And rumor has it that the FBI is investigating all of this...

Which — for the same reason Blackburn has no grounds for a lawsuit — it can do!

[Kazinski]

The question is what should the standard be?

I assume you don't want the Trump DOJ going on a fishing expedition through the phone records of Democratic Congressman, I don't either, but I haven't heard any predicate offered for why Ted Cruz's phone logs were needed, or Blackburn's or anyone else's.

There should be hearings on what the predicate was, and I'd like to see Boasberg testify as what grounds he would think would be sufficient for an administration to start an investigation of its elected political opposition.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say, at basically no point are the gag orders ever justified.

How the hell does anybody square gag orders and the 1st amendment??? They're Platonic ideal 1st amendment violations.

As for the subpoenas themselves, at the point where you have probable cause of a crime by the suspects, obviously.

[not guilty]

Gag orders are indeed prior restraints for First Amendment purposes. Senator Blackburn, however, was not gagged, and the recipients of the subpoenas are not kvetching.

And probable cause is not required for the issuance of a subpoena by investigating authorities, Brett.

[Drewski]

"How the hell does anybody square gag orders and the 1st amendment?"

The right to a fair trial stands on equal footing with the right of free speech. I understand that "Lampposts" Bellmore doesn't believe in trials at all, which is probably whence your confusion arose.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Nope, don't see anything about a right to prohibit telling people that you've been served with a warrant. And to override a clear statement such as the 1st amendment, you need an equally clear statement, not a mere contested implications.

Don't see the word "fair" in there, for that matter...

And gag orders such as this aren't even about fair trials to begin with. They're about keeping suspects in the dark.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ How the hell does anybody square gag orders and the 1st amendment??? They're Platonic ideal 1st amendment violations.”

Fuck you, that’s why.

[not guilty]

The only entities gagged here are the telephone service providers, who have apparently been cooperative and who are not squawking about the orders.

This appears to be a no harm, no foul situation.

[Commenter_XY]

The gag order is bullshit. Agree w/Brett on that.

Is unlawful resistance an actual crime? Is that the same as sedition?

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of tautologically, given the "unlawful" part, I'd say. I take "unlawful resistance" to mean "resistance accomplished by criminal acts".

[Kazinski]

Protesting ICE from the sidewalk is lawful resistance, throwing rocks at ICE vehicles is unlawful resistance.

Attending a protest speech in the eclipse is lawful resistance, forcing your way into the Capitol while Congress is in session. is unlawful resistance.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Here is a non-hypothetical. Any time there is a violent insurrection against the United States, for which members of the U.S. government have been expressing support, then those government members ought to expect monitoring of who they contacted and when, during the run-up to the insurrection, and as it was ongoing, and afterward until criminal sentences have been meted out.

If a person who is a member of government, and who has expressed support for insurrection, is found to be communicating with insurrectionists, then that person should also expect the contents of such communications to be recorded, and potentially used as evidence in a criminal trial. Of course, before any such trial can happen, a grand jury must agree that factual allegations justify an indictment.

It is well-precedented that members of government in the U.S. do not receive impunity from consequences of participating in insurrections against government. It is likewise well-precedented that they be denied eligibility for office if they do participate.

Also? Lying by an oath-sworn government official about non-existence of a violent insurrection ought to earn ejection from office for oath breaking. On that basis, citizens innocent of any offense could expect protection from malevolent officials who might lie while trying to procure indictments, or otherwise tamper with the system of justice.

Note that not one syllable of what I wrote above can reasonably be construed to advocate enforcement action on the basis of, "mere suspicion." Lying about existence of an insurrection openly and flagrantly undertaken is evidence of at least probable cause. You appear to advocate that pro-insurrectionists you agree with should get impunity if they are members of government.

That is worse than unwise, but is neither criminal nor actionable. If you are not an oath-sworn public official, and if you did not yourself participate in violent insurrection, then you should enjoy a right to speak freely about all these matters whenever and however you please.

Violating oaths and taking up arms against government are the the right threshold standards to divide citizen rights from special responsibilities the Constitution places on members of government. You retain all your rights as a citizen, even if you do not understand that members of governments voluntarily take on obligations you do not have.

[Don Nico]

"Any time there is a violent insurrection against the United States, for which members of the U.S. government have been expressing support, then those government members ought to expect monitoring "
You mean illegal surveillance.
Yes, the NSA has done it for years,but that does not make it right or legal

[David Nieporent]

You mean illegal surveillance.

I don't know what Lathrop means, but nothing he wrote necessarily required "illegal surveillance," and nothing that actually happened — to the extent that we know of, about the things that some MAGA are hyperventilating about — constituted such, either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're arguing that Henry Fonda was responsible for what Hanoi Jane did.

[Bunny495]

"Lying about existence of an insurrection openly and flagrantly undertaken is evidence of at least probable cause. You appear to advocate that pro-insurrectionists you agree with should get impunity if they are members of government."

I am not buying your crap about insurrection. If insurrection was so open and flagrant why was no one charged with insurrection.

Once again your obvious bias comes to light.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - agreed - the government officials involved/impeding / encouraging the BLM riots should be prosecuted.

Same with government officials impeding and/or encouraging the impeding and resistance to enforcement of federal law should be prosecuted.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wrote this yesterday and it was misunderstood.

Much is made about individual rights, e.g. to aggressively block the passage of others.

Never mentioned ts the right of the person whose path is blocked to un-block it. Or to run over people.

[David Nieporent]

That's because there is no "right … to run over people." The use of deadly force against another is of course a crime, except in the narrow circumstance of a reasonable belief that one is preventing severe injury or death to oneself or another.

[Commenter_XY]

Memo to ICE: The POTUS is not satisfied.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/11/02/trump-ice-raids-havent-gone-far-enough/

Step it up, boys and girls. There are millions more to deport.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, there are. Millions more to deport, I mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

On the plus side there aren't millions still coming in.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're at least gaining ground, now. Even at the current pace it's going to take years to remove the backlog accumulated during multiple administrations.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you heedlessly assert doctrines reminiscent of those which delivered the Fort Pillow massacre during the Civil War. Two principal differences between Forrest then, and Trump now:

1. Trump is doing abroad most, but not all, of his overt murders. Forrest of course did his killings under a state of rebellion, so not quite, "abroad."

2. Trump's murders, and Forrest's murders, targeted mostly dark-skinned people construed to be without rights owed to white people. Forrest did make an exception of white officers captured while commanding black soldiers. Trump has not quite yet pronounced that exception, only encouraged doing it, including by dangling pardons, among forces Trump commands. And of course if you broaden consideration beyond instances of murder by gunfire—to include also murder by deliberate policy of starvation, and deprivation of medical care—Trump's victim count has has already exceeded Forrest's by orders of magnitude. And Trump's victim count remains on the increase.

I am not optimistic that the Forrest comparison will get a moment's reflection from you. If it does not, then that is indication how urgently you do need to pause to reconsider your own advocacy. The scale of the policy goals you think legitimate is incommensurate with the arbitrary and deadly means which Trump inflicts, and you praise.

[Martinned]

He must have heard of the UK Tory Party's loony "deport 5% of the population" proposal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/22/deporting-legally-settled-people-broadly-in-line-conservative-policy-kemi-badenoch

[Poxigah146]

I hope so. It's because of worthless immigrants and their progeny that people like Mamdani can win elections.

If the nation's demographics looked like it did in 1965 before the nation-busting INA, modern Democrats wouldn't stand a chance.

[not guilty]

"It's because of worthless immigrants and their progeny that people like Mamdani can win elections."

Poxigah146, from which Native American tribe are you descended?

[Poxigah146]

Irrelevant, because the English colonists were not immigrants. They were conquerors, and rightly so.

[Martinned]

Given that we've apparently established that CBS can't edit interviews with politicians, who is going to sue them for sane-washing this one?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-full-transcript-norah-odonnell-60-minutes-interview-with-president-trump/

[Martinned]

And spare a thought for Scott Adams. If it wasn't for the fact that he's personal friends with the Great Leader and RFK jr., America's terrible healthcare system might well have cost him his life.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-help-dilbert-creator-scott-adams-obtain-cancer-treatment-2025-11-03/

But now I'm sure he will be OK. After all, as any patriotic American knows, Trump can definitely cure cancer.

[ThePublius]

"America's terrible healthcare system"

'Though it's expensive, the U.S. has the best health care in the world. Just count the people with the means form all over the world who come here for care.

"as any patriotic American knows, Trump can definitely cure cancer."

It was Biden who promised, multiple times, that as president he would cure cancer; not Trump.

[Martinned]

Tell that to Scott Adams, who had to reach out to the President in order to get an IV placed.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and that makes America's healthcare system terrible. Got it.

[Joe_dallas]

The facts you presented are dubious

[SRG2]

'Though it's expensive, the U.S. has the best health care in the world. Just count the people with the means form all over the world who come here for care.

This is a version of what I've called the Rolls-Royce fallacy. in the 1970s, Britain made the best car in the world - but the British car industry overall, as represented by British Leyland and others, sucked - poor quality control, rust, electrical problems, etc.

[Krayt]

The bleeding edge of tech costs money. Try eviscersting the profit motives of cell phone makers, or computers, or video games, under the guise of making it affordable, if not free, to all.

The choice isn't between expensive, new medical tech and cheap, new medical tech. It's between expensive, new medical tech, and no new medical tech. There is no such thing as rapid, new, cheap medical tech.

[Armchair]

Fun fact...

The drug in question is Pluvicto. Adams health care provider approved it. There were just scheduling issues. Not necessarily unexpected, it's a radiopharmaceutical with a 6 day half life, so it needs to be produced pretty near when it's to be used.

Luckily, Adams wasn't in the UK on public health insurance. There it's "still being evaluated" for cost effectiveness by NICE.

[ThePublius]

The U.K. would let him die. Canada would help him die.

[Armchair]

Even Canada's not great.

Ontario was the first province to approve Pluvicto use... in 2025, 3 years after it was approved in the US.

https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1005576/ontario-first-in-canada-to-administer-new-publicly-funded-prostate-cancer-care-treatment

[Voize of Reazon]

You are misreading that article.

2025 is when Ontario became the first province to publicly fund Pluvicto - that is, to pay for it out of government health insurance - but Canada approved it in 2022.

[Armchair]

Canada may have approved it for use...but they didn't approve it for COVERAGE.

Since Canada is almost entirely public health care, the drug just wouldn't be paid for by their health insurance. Which means it effectively wouldn't be used.

[Sarcastr0]

How are you so lazy and without any personal dignity that you don't bother to check stuff before you just type what you speculate must be true.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/pharmaceuticals/access-insurance-coverage-prescription-medicines.html

The publicly-funded drug programs generally provide drug plan coverage for those most in need, based on age, income, and medical condition. Many Canadians and their family members have drug coverage linked to employment and some Canadians may have no effective drug coverage and pay the full cost of prescription drugs.

[Armchair]

I check it.

"MONTREAL, QC – Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. (Novartis) is pleased to announce that, as of July 2, 2025, Pluvicto® (lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan injection) is publicly reimbursed in Quebec for eligible patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)"

https://lifesciencesbc.ca/members/quebec-implements-public-reimbursement-of-pluvicto-a-defining-milestone-for-radioligand-therapy-in-canada/

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment above: "Since Canada is almost entirely public health care, the drug just wouldn't be paid for by their health insurance. Which means it effectively wouldn't be used."

That's flat wrong.

[Armchair]

Show me where. Link it. Show me Pluvicto being used in Canada, prior to 2025, and not in a clinical trial.

Show it. Link it. If it's flat wrong.

[Voize of Reazon]

Where are you getting this misinformation?

If a drug is approved then it can be prescribed, but patients would have to pay for it themselves or through private supplementary health insurance as explained here, which is the situation for most prescription drugs administered outside a hospital.

[Armchair]

"If a drug is approved then it can be prescribed, but patients would have to pay for it themselves...which is the situation for most prescription drugs administered outside a hospital."

1. Pluvicto should not be administered outside of a hospital. It is a radiopharmaceutical...ie radioactive...with a short (<7 day) half life. You don't want it sitting on your shelf.

2. It is also "very" expensive. A full treatment of 6 doses costs $250,000+.

3. Because public health insurance dominates in Canada, if public health insurance doesn't cover it...it doesn't get used. Regardless of whether it is approved. In the above example, sure Scott Adams could have just "bought it himself" for treatment. That's not really the question though. It's about treatment in the context of the health insurance / health care system of the given country. If you have enough money, you can basically ignore much of the health care system complexities. But that's not really relevant to how things actually work for most people.

https://www.novartis.com/ca-en/news/media-releases/first-patient-ontario-treated-publicly-funded-pluvictotm-major-step-forward-advanced-prostate-cancer-care

[Sarcastr0]

Private supplementary health insurance. You're ignoring that pretty salient point.

You were caught posting bullshit based on your ass.

Misreading the response correcting you so you can tap-dance, along with doubling down is just poor.

[Armchair]

"Private supplementary health insurance. You're ignoring that pretty salient point."

Which does not cover Pluvicto, in Canada, prior to 2025. Please, link if I'm incorrect. Show me where.

[Voize of Reazon]

Armchair, read that article I linked to. It explains how this stuff works, as opposed to how you imagine it works.

"Pluvicto should not be administered outside of a hospital."
Of course. My point is that most prescription drugs are administered outside of a hospital and are not covered by government insurance, but Ontarians get their Viagra and Lipitor and Levoxyl anyway.

"if public health insurance doesn't cover it ... it doesn't get used" Again, not true. Not for most drugs, or dental care, or eyeglasses, or hearing aids.

[Armchair]

Again, we're talking in the context of Pluvicto

Let's explicitly point this out. If you're a Canadian citizen with Prostate Cancer and it's 2023, and your physician recommends Pluvicto...what are your options? Be explicit.

[Voize of Reazon]

Now I know you still haven't read the article.
If you had, you would at least know that eligibility depends on residency, not citizenship.
Read the article, I will not read it for you.

[Armchair]

For the purposes of this discussion, citizenship versus residency doesn't matter.

"Let's explicitly point this out. If you're a Canadian citizen with Prostate Cancer and it's 2023, and your physician recommends Pluvicto...what are your options? Be explicit."

Answer the question

[Sarcastr0]

Luckily, Adams wasn't in the UK on public health insurance

Armchair, missing the entire point of the story.

[Armchair]

Martinned wants to blame the US for it's "poor health care system".

But it's simply not true. And superior to that in the UK and Canada, which has "public health care".

The question is a new drug, Pluvicto. It was approved in 2022 in the EU and US (Of course, approved first in the US). And readily used in appropriate cases in the US by health care providers.

But in Canada, it took till 2025 until public health care approved it for use. Until then...you just couldn't get public health care to give it to you. And in the UK, private health insurance will cover it. But NHS won't. It's "still under review".

It's a case study in public health care systems, and how they "save money"...by delaying approval of new live saving treatments.

[Michael P]

Eh, they don't only save money by delaying the approval of new treatments, they also save money by delaying provision of old treatments -- or, as ThePublius noted, pushing people towards euthanasia.

[Malika la Maize]

I like how Pubes help becomes push for Mikie. He hates people exercising autonomy.

[Martinned]

Yes, because this entire story is an example of how the US healthcare system is so bureaucratic that even a rich patient like Adams literally risks dying of paperwork.

Go ahead, ask me how many forms you have to fill out to get treated in a UK hospital.

As for the rest of your misinformation, please go ahead and shove it somewhere where only one of your outstanding doctors can remove it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"how many forms you have to fill out to get treated in a UK hospital"

Wrong question.

How long do you have to wait to see a specialist? Or get an MRI Or get "elective" surgery?

UK hospitals have an urgent care system in effect.

[Armchair]

MRI wait times are fascinating. I've had the misfortune to need a few recently within my family. In the US, MRI wait times are short...amazingly short.

For urgent conditions, MRI wait times are on the order of a day or less. For routine investigations, under a week. Often, it's more about convenience to the patient in terms of time and location.

In Europe & Canada, it is longer..much longer. Canada sits at 16 weeks. France is "good" at 30 days. The UK...6-18 weeks. Croatia...more than 1/2 a year.

[Bob from Ohio]

I fell and hurt my knee last autumn. Got an MRI the day after the doctor said to get one. Could have had one the same day but the time didn't work right.

[Armchair]

"Go ahead, ask me how many forms you have to fill out to get treated in a UK hospital."

Sure. How many forms do you need to fill out to get approved for Pluvicto coverage by NHS in the UK?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/prostate-cancer-patients-desperate-life-32267598

I eagerly await your answer.

[Sarcastr0]

Man needed sufficient followers and Trump ass-kissing online to get his health care figured out.

This is what Armchair claims is the superior system.

MAGA all think they'll be the select few aristocrats in the new shitty order they seek to usher in.

[Armchair]

Deciding health care by a single anecdote?

Tell you what. Try going to Canada for Health Care. Tell me what you think. Your MRI wait time will be...16 weeks.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is talking policy. Not even the OP.

What a shitty attempt to shift the discussion.

[Drewski]

Sour grapes. The UK and Canada's systems have better outcomes than the US's, are less expensive, and are more popular.

[Armchair]

" better outcomes"
--According to what exactly?

"less expensive"
--Sure. They pay doctors and nurses a hell of a lot less.

"are more popular"
Are they? Canadians keep sending people to the US for treatment.

[Sarcastr0]

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

Healthcare cost per person.
Canada $6,319 (2022)
USA $12,555 (2022)

Life expectancy.
Canada 82.6 years
USA 76.3 years

Maternal mortality rate per 100,000 births
Canada 11 (2020)
USA 33 (2021)

Under-5 mortality rate per 1000 live births. 2020
Canada 5.0
USA 6.3

[Armchair]

And Sarcy cites a bunch of stats that aren't directly due to the health care system, like life expectancy

[Bob from Ohio]

Mass illegal immigration brings unhealthy people into the country.

[Sarcastr0]

Healthcare cost per person sure is directly due to our healthcare system.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Really? If there are greater rates of smoking or obesity or whatever, that’s directly due to the health care system?

Not to mention that health care costs are probably going to be correlated with life expectancy.

[Absaroka]

" If there are greater rates of smoking or obesity or whatever, that’s directly due to the health care system?"

There are certainly a lot of confounding factors. For example, suppose two countries have different cultural norms about how appropriate extreme measures at end of life? Or a lot of 20 year olds getting shot or overdosing.

But overhead costs are a factor as well. Some years ago my wife got a trip through the cancer treatment pipeline - scans, surgery, chemo, more scans, yadda. At one point we waited a couple of weeks for some back-n-forth between the docs and insurance about a new fangled genetic test to guide treatment. We were naturally anxious about the delay, and the doc mentioned that *half* of the cancer care facility's staff were dealing with insurance. That's a lot of overhead.

I'm not saying a national health service is better, but it's not like we're someplace optimal either.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - most every proponent of nationalized health cites stats that they dont understand.

properly adjusting for demographics and for accidental deaths, murder car accidents, etc, there is very little if any difference in US and other industrial country life expectancy.

Life expectancy after discovery of disease for most diseases is considerably longer than those other industrial countries

Worldwide there is about a 1 year increase in life expectancy for every 10 degrees further north (and south) of the equator up to about the 60th parallel.

[Sarcastr0]

The stats understander has logged on.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacry - dont blame me for you lack of knowledge of the data.

[Joe_dallas]

likewise - dont blame me for you lack of ability to interpret and understand the data in a meaningful way.

Yes Our healthcare costs are high. That being said, anyone who compares life expectancy difference without proper adjustments for demographics, accidental deaths and other factors that arent the result of health care differences is a fool pushing an agenda.

Genetics and behavior play a vastly greater role in life expectancy than health care.

[Absaroka]

"Genetics and behavior play a vastly greater role in life expectancy than health care."

Given that pre-vaccine childhood survival could be as low as 50%, that can't be right:

"Historical mortality data reveals the stark reality of childhood death before widespread vaccination. In the United States, 30 percent of all deaths occurred in children less than 5 years of age in 1900, compared to just 1.4 percent in 1999 [1]. This dramatic shift illustrates how childhood mortality dominated the death statistics in the early 20th century. Globally, the situation was even more dire - for most of human history, around 1 in 2 newborns died before reaching the age of 15"

[Joe_dallas]

Absaroka 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Genetics and behavior play a vastly greater role in life expectancy than health care.

Quality vaccines are the exception to my statement,

[Absaroka]

"Quality vaccines are the exception to my statement,"

Fair enough.

How about, say, blood pressure meds, and cholesterol lowering drugs?

For sure, diet/weight/exercise can affect those, but I have known people who were rail thin and exercised and still had galloping hypertension. And I - and about every one I know - has had at least had one serious infection that became a non-event because of antibiotics. Not all of us would have died young, but some would have.

I dunno how old you are, but many men end up with enlarged prostates and, AFAIK, there is no lifestyle component to that. If it gets bad enough you get kidney problems that can be fatal. Nowadays some combination of drugs and surgery can largely mean no one dies from that.

A few years ago I was reading a book on demographics that reproduced a page listing causes of death in London in the ??1400s or 1500s??. Dental problems were like the 4th leading cause. I mentioned it to my dentist, and he said yup, abscesses were common and tour mouth is pretty close to the brain. Nowadays modern dentistry prevents most of those, and antibiotics fix almost all the rest.

Or, 3 of our family knees have had meniscus tears repaired. For all three, we couldn't walk without crutches prior to surgery. Post surgery we can hike miles a day. You can say, well, that's a quality of life thing, not a lifespan thing, but I think being active vs. bedridden contributes quite a bit to longevity.

[Frank Drackman]

Amazing, especially since the Racial composition of both countries is almost exactly the same!!!!

[Bunny495]

As has been pointed out, too many peeps are voting with their feet and coming to America for health care to take your bashing of the American health care system seriously. Econ 101 teaches us rationing of goods and services is done by price and time. If you are able to be in the price line the American health care system is great. If you are in the time line you have to wait, just not as long as in other countries.

[Martinned]

Well yes. The victims of the US healthcare system usually aren't in a position to vote with their feet and go to another country. After all, most of the time the cause of their problems can be summarised as "sucks to be poor".

[Martinned]

Elon Musk is clearly still on drugs:

"These lovely small towns in England, Scotland and Ireland, they've been living their lives quietly. They're like hobbits"

"And so one day, 1,000 people show up in your village of 500 and start raping the kids"

"This has now happened, God knows how many times in Britain"

https://bsky.app/profile/implausibleblog.bsky.social/post/3m4ocrfibq22p

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in actual small-town England, such local towns are perfectly capable of going to war with Parliament, the government, and the High Speed 2 railway construction project, until you end up with stories like this:

The bridge is designed to carry two lanes of traffic over what will become, one day, the HS2 railway line. Because it is part of HS2, it has to meet far higher standards than most ordinary road bridges. It is built to last for 120 years instead of the usual 75, and it must be able to withstand the impact from a derailing train moving at over three hundred kilometres per hour. Elaborate defences are being constructed to remove the possibility of any vehicle - even trucks or tractors - falling down into the railway cutting below. Spanning some seventy metres, supported on colossal steel and concrete piers sunk deep into the earth, in engineering terms it is one of the finest small road bridges in the country.

But you’ll never be able to drive on it. Because the bridge was built for a road that doesn’t actually exist.

https://martinrobbins.substack.com/p/how-hs2-built-a-bridge-to-nowhere

[Martinned]

O, and just for shits & giggles America is going to invade Nigeria.

If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!

Fortunately the US has a Secretary of Defence who will explain to the President that maybe he should reconsider. O, wait.

Yes sir.

The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately. The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.

[ThePublius]

And what's your country doing about the genocide of Christians in Nigeria?

[Swede425]

STRONGLY WORDED LETTER INCOMING!!!

[Martinned]

Are you on drugs? Or are you simply mainlining misinformation that is provided by people who are on drugs? WTF are you talking about? Do you even know where Nigeria is? Do you know the first thing about it? Or did you literally just find out that it's a country that exists?

[Armchair]

Genocide isn't a reason to intervene in a country? You consider genocide "shits and giggles"?

[hobie]

We're watching genocide perpetrated all the time: Gaza. Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar etc. And not doing anything about it. All this meddling in foreign countries' internal politics is not very America First.

[Armchair]

I would say we are doing more than a fair amount in Gaza and Ukraine, with all the peace treaties and weapons funding respectively.

[Martinned]

Yes, but giving genocidal maniacs weapons probably wasn't the kind of "doing" hobie had in mind.

[Armchair]

I know English isn't your native language, but in this context "respectively" meant the weapons going to Ukraine.

[wvattorney13]

I hope not. There's a prince over there that is going to give me a lot of money. Stay tuned.

[David Nieporent]

I like how MAGA doesn't even bother pretending any more to not be bigots. Although it'll be fun when someone in the administration arrests or kills Trump, given his ordering of the killing of Christians in the Caribbean.

[Armchair]

How is stopping genocide "bigotry"?

[David Nieporent]

Nigeria is a troubled and violent place, but there is no Christian genocide in Nigeria; the victims of the violence are across the spectrum. But specifying that all you care about is the killing of Christians — as Trump did — is where the bigotry lies. Just like closing US borders to all refugees except white South Africans.

[Armchair]

"but there is no Christian genocide in Nigeria; "

That's your claim. Others think differently. Those committing genocide always deny it.

https://www.avemarialaw.edu/international-strategy-conference-persecution-and-genocide-of-christians-in-sub-saharan-africa/

[not guilty]

David French has an interesting New York Times op-ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/02/opinion/trump-corruption-zelensky-johnson-biden.html

The MAGA cult somehow regards Donald Trump's shamelessness as praiseworthy. That is troubling.

[Malika la Maize]

I read that, his brazenness is transparency!

I think it’s that his supporters have wanted some of the reforms he’s brought so badly they’re willing to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend his blatant corruption.

[Bwaaah]

"I think it’s that his supporters have wanted some of the reforms he’s brought so badly they’re willing to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend his blatant corruption."

Such a rarity: an honest, rational explanation. Partisanism *is* the application of mental gymnastics for that very purpose.

[Malika la Maize]

Yesterday I posted a story alleging Kash Patel used a government jet to go on a date with his girlfriend. Here’s the response from our MAGAns:

* Mr. Bumble   17 hours ago 

 Flag Comment
Mute User
Just following the lead of his predecessor.

Reply 

* ThePublius   17 hours ago 

 Flag Comment
Mute User
In the total scheme of things, who cares? It's not like all of these govt. big wigs haven't been doing this forever. 
And, how do you know he didn't reimburse the government for this use? Do you know?

Reply 

* Michael P   16 hours ago 

 Flag Comment
Mute User
You think Kash Patel is gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United? 
https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/us-news/bernie-sanders-refuses-to-apologize-for-flying-on-private-jets/

Reply 


It’s pure whataboutism. The other side did this, and when they did I screeched, but it’s now ok for my guy to do this, because the other side did it!

Remember when these people talk about “draining the swamp” or “Democrat corruption” they are being completely disingenuous. There’s no neutral principle they believe in on this. It’s just propaganda for them. All principals over principles.

[Martinned]

Motivated reasoning is a common way to deal with cognitive dissonance...

[Malika la Maize]

The thing is, Kash is a functionary, virtually nothing is lost by criticizing his actions here. Your kid won’t become trans and have to write a paper on the 1619 Project if you say “that’s messed up if he did that!” But wagons must be circled I guess.

[Martinned]

As long as the Great Leader protects him, so must all the cult members. Criticism of Kash would be tantamount to criticism of the Great Leader, and that cannot be tolerated.

[Michael P]

You post a lot of stupid things and are surprised when people point out your stupidity. News at 11. "Whataboutism" is a hypocrite's lame attempt to dodge answering for hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at the above quotes. They're not about anyone's hypocricy; all three are justifying Kash's behavior.

That's whattaboutism.

[Michael P]

By all means, read my reply to the first response to my comment quoted above and decide whether I was pointing out hypocrisy yesterday.

But when I mentioned hypocrisy today, it's because Malika the Awful Reader/White Savior complained about whataboutism in a form of hypocrisy. See also below, where he screeches indignantly to deflect from answering whether Patel paid for the flight.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s funny to see Mikie start this White Savior thing from a discussion about Planned Parenthood yesterday where *he* jumped in to say “they killed more of the blacks than the Klan” and I responded to him. Every accusation is a confession I guess.

And his comment about Patel was pure whataboutism: Kash used his office to commandeer a government plane for a date, well Bernie Sanders flies on private planes!!!!

It also doesn’t matter to me if Patel reimbursed the government after he got called out. Government planes are not for officials to make dates. Note, this guy would be screaming “drain the swamp” at a Trump rally like a teenaged girl at a Beatles concert back in the day.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s stupid to point out a government official misusing taxpayer resources for personal uses? Or just when you like the official?

The P in this guy’s handle stands for principals, not principles.

[ThePublius]

And, a day has passed and I still don't care. And you never replied as to knowing whether Patel reimbursed the government for the use of the jet. Well, do you?

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t care about corruption and abuse of power as long as your side does it, yes, that’s my point.

[ThePublius]

You assume things about me that are not in evidence. Did you hear me complain about any other pol's use of their official airplane?

[Malika la Maize]

So you love abuse of power generally?

[Michael P]

You suck at reading, and are apparently proud of the fact.

[Malika la Maize]

Where’s the reading error here, Mikie?

[Michael P]

ThePublius never said anything about abuse of power. You're just on a campaign to be an asshole by putting your words in his mouth. Sadly, this is nothing new for you.

[Malika la Maize]

He said he was ok with a government official using taxpayer resources to go on a date.

I get you don’t see that as an abuse of power when your side does it, but it’s goofy not to realize many other people do.

[ThePublius]

You're just an annoying dick.

[Malika la Maize]

A really annoying dick is someone who is good with government officials abusing the power of their office.

[Michael P]

So you love abuse of power generally.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re the one who can’t denounce this.

This isn’t hard Mikie (you’ve heard that so many times before I understand), should government officials use the power of their office to use taxpayer resources for things like a date? I say no, whether D or R or I or whatever. Can you say the same?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — Your run your pro-Trump shtick right to its limit—nobody could ask more of you. But it falls flat anyway. And you don't learn. Nobody finds you even slightly persuasive. What other purpose could you be after?

[Drewski]

Remember when this guy spent months scolding people for uncivil replies? What a tool.

[David Nieporent]

And you never replied as to knowing whether Patel reimbursed the government for the use of the jet. Well, do you?

Surely, rather than firing the person in charge of FBI jets in response to the story — which he did do! (for reasons nobody can understand, since the story was based on public, not leaked, information) — Patel would've just responded, "Actually, I fully paid for those flights" — which he didn't do.

[Life of Brian]

The usual suspects have been desperately trying to fan these flames for about 6 months now. Back then, alt-right CBS included this through-gritted-teeth admission in the midst of their effort:

FBI directors are required by executive branch policy to use government aircraft for air travel, whether official or personal. That allows them to maintain access to secure communications wherever they travel and to move quickly in the event of an emergency. They must reimburse the government for personal flights at coach fare rates. Directors are permitted to take family or friends on personal trips, but the cost of their trips must be reimbursed to the government, as well.

The fact that they're taking another breathless swing at it now just shows how desperate they are for something--anything--to shift the news cycle.

[Malika la Maize]

You have to love Bri Bri linking a source even if he hasn’t read it:

about the degree to which Patel has used government aircraft for purely personal reasons, including trips to visit his girlfriend and attend hockey games and other sporting events.

[Life of Brian]

"FBI directors are required by executive branch policy to use government aircraft for air travel, whether official or personal."

Trace with your finger and move your lips if necessary. Maybe it will sink in this time.

[Malika la Maize]

Will the concept of degreee sink in with you?

[Life of Brian]

There's nothing to sink in. Not only have you not established any sort of baseline to support a supposed excessive degree, it's irrelevant since he doesn't have a choice to fly commercial. At bottom, you're demanding he just not take personal trips at all. Is that the standard you want for everyone now?

[Bob from Ohio]

"purely personal reasons"

So long as he pays the commercial rate back to the government, this is completely allowed. The policy has been pointed out to you but you ignore it, Its not new either.

Your "corruption" is just unsupported innuendo.

[David Nieporent]

I like "required by executive branch policy." "It's okay that I did this because I said I should do it."

[Malika la Maize]

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), who is running for governor of her state, berated police officers and Transportation Security Administration officials at Charleston International Airport on Thursday, according to an incident report from the Charleston airport police.

“She repeatedly stated we were ‘F------ Incompetent,’ and ‘this is no way to treat a f------ US Representative,’” Pfc. Aaron W. Reed, who serves with the airport police, wrote in the report. Reed also wrote that Mace told officers they “would never treat Tim Scott like this,” referring to the U.S. senator from the state and former GOP presidential candidate, and reported that she planned to contact “Eliot and tell him how horrible she has been treated,” in reference to the airport’s president and CEO, Elliott Summey.

Reed further wrote that Mace “was cursing and complaining” as officers escorted her to her gate and that she continued her “tirade” until boarding.

Another officer present for the encounter, Earnest Southers, offered a corroborating statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/31/nancy-mace-airport-police-report-tsa/

[Martinned]

Even apart from this whole Trump mess it's always fascinated me how much curtsying and bowing there is in a country that is supposed to be a republic. There is no European country where voters would put up with politicians demanding to be treated the way American politicians are treated.

[Frank Drackman]

Well we don't have a Pediophile Kingie-Wingie like in your Neverland-Ranch of a Country (you aren't called the "Low" Countries for nothing)

Frank

[SRG2]

That hardly addresses the point.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure it does. The king gets the curtsying and bowing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — Special privileges for congress people at airports have for decades been customary payback for special treatment aviation interests get on the floors of the House and Senate.

Reserved parking at no cost, close to terminal buildings. Jumping the lines. Holding planes for VIP delays. All expected daily fare for hard-traveling politicians thus kept out of touch with trials and privations their aviation policies inflict on the public. Not completely out of touch, mind you. That would detract from the pleasure of privilege. Just conspicuously buffered.

Once accustomed to that, the reps and senators become understandably aggrieved when they deliver the goods the industry demands—no other American industry is more lavishly served—and then the special treatment does not materialize. It becomes especially silly when the cause of inconvenience was authored in part by the senator or rep complaining about it, but nobody involved expects that ought to signify.

[Martinned]

Yes, sure, all of that. But even more basic "curtsying and bowing", like calling people "Senator" every single time (and continuing to do so long after they leave office), all the pageantry with soldiers in uniform jumping at attention, flags, national anthems, prayers, and lord knows what.

The previous prime minister of the Netherlands famously rode his bicycle to work every day. He knew that his voters liked that. (Obviously he had a chauffeur driven car whenever he needed it.) Unless it creates serious security problems, Dutch politicians (including the PM) will live in whatever house they lived in before.

[Bob from Ohio]

We're an important country, yours is not.

[David Nieporent]

There is no European country where voters would put up with politicians demanding to be treated the way American politicians are treated.

I don't believe you.

[Poxigah146]

She's probably right that Scott wouldn't have been treated that way. Most TSA employees and airport cops are nasty blacks who hate whites.

[Frank Drackman]

I travel a lot, from Key West to Seattle and all in between the 48 States, alot of it in the Hinterlands, heck, I've been to more Airports in Wyoming than California, (Rock Springs, Cody, Jackson Hole, Gillette, Casper, Cheyenne vs Fresno, San Diego, Sacramento, LAX, Bob Hope)
and I go through with the Hoi Polloi, never a problem except it's always a guessing game if you have to take your laptop out or not.
and some of the worst have been in Dumbfuck Ark N' Saw where it's Officers Billy Bob Inbred and Bobby Joe Chlamydia giving your Ballsack the 3rd degree.
Don't blame them for having a bit of a Tude', they're the ones getting minimal pay to check peoples Ballsacks, and they can't even afford to eat there.

Frank "Take out everything in my pocket?? you asked for it!!"

[Malika la Maize]

I travel a lot in my mind.

FTFY.

Take your meds, Francis!

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yeah, Rent Check might be a little late, Government Shut-down you know. Seriously, think you can do something about the cobwebs in your Hippocampus??

[grb]

Malika la Maize : "I travel a lot in my mind."

Frank's mind is truly an amazing place. In it, he's a man of awesome accomplishments, stellar achievements, and countless acts of heroism. Sometimes when he's recounting the Glory of Himself in his signature inchoate babble, you can almost faintly hear the applause Frank hears (in his own mind).

Walter Mitty would blush for shame......

[Malika la Maize]

Typical MAGA

[Frank Drackman]

It's a Freud thang, that whole "undisputed favorite of his mother" and if I had a time machine first thing I'd do is go back to 1961 and steal her away from my Dad.
OK, that was creepy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm so white I glow in the dark, and I can't say that I've noticed any particular hostility from TSA agents of any color.

[David Nieporent]

I'm very white (not by Nazi standards, of course), and I can't say that I've noticed any TSA agents of any race that weren't hostile to every traveler of every race.

("Did I tell you to take that laptop out of your bag, asshole?"
"But I flew here two days ago and I was required to take it out then, so I was trying to save time."
"Put it back right now or we'll pull you aside for secondary screening.")

[Bunny495]

I have to say most times I have encountered TSA goons I have been tempted to act the same way Nancy did. Fortunately for me discretion is the better part of valor.

[Martinned]

Another sign of the constant decline of America's reputation in the world:

America, which topped the index in 2014, has dropped out of the top ten for the first time since the ranking began in 2006. It now shares the 12th tier of passports with Malaysia.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/10/16/the-worlds-most-and-least-powerful-passports

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when we get overrun by Germany.

[Bunny495]

Yet it took Trump making a great effort to stop illegal immigration at the border and a massive deportation program to even put a small dent in which country most immigration (legal or not) occurs. It is called voting with your feet.

[Martinned]

I assume you didn't mean for that to be a response to my comment?

[Poxigah146]

So the refrain among the intelligentsia is that the Republicans are to blame for the shutdown because they could just agree to the healthcare subsidies and the Democrats would reopen the government.

But when the Republicans were in the minority, they were to blame for not supporting a "clean bill."

It looks like the elite are okay with the minority party shutting down the government for unrelated reasons, but only if the reasons are "pure."

Typical leftist MO.

[Malika la Maize]

This isn’t hard. The public sees the GOP as at fault because they generally demean the federal government and its workers and specifically this time have a goofy dotard as their national leader who does that. The appealing to norms about CRs is inside baseball and silly given Trump’s general norm busting which is celebrated by MAGAns.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's (as well as the Admin) has been shitposting through it. Including with AI hoax videos.
Claiming this is a crisis you're very serious about doesn't really comport with the GOP's online behavior.

And the GOP Is unilaterally fucking with SNAP, which also makes them look bad.
And their messaging has been that SNAP is very bad but also the Dems are very bad and to blame for SNAP benefits ending.

If there was any discipline in the party, I do think this'd go badly for the Dems. But, MAGA is about the opposite of discipline.

[Poxigah146]

To the extent the public sees them at fault, it's because of the leftist media.

If Republicans are to blame when they're the majority for not kowtowing to the Democrats' demands, and the Republicans are also to blame when they're in the minority for not supporting a clean bill without making unrelated demands, then when are Republicans not to blame, in your world?

[Malika la Maize]

Can you read or did you just not?

[Poxigah146]

I can read just fine. No one is demeaning anyone. The Republicans have tried with 14 bills to reopen the government.

That said, at least 40% of government employees (and 80% of the black ones) are useless.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, thanks!

[David Nieporent]

The Republicans have tried with 14 bills to reopen the government.

Once again, just doing the same thing over and over that one already knows won't work does not deserve to be characterized as "trying." All of those "tries" are performative. They aren't trying to negotiate; they're just trying to embarrass Democrats. And are mad that it isn't working.
​
​
(And yes, I also rejected the whole "hostage taking" metaphor in the past when the shoe was on the other foot.)

[Armchair]

All of those "tries" are performative."

They are not "performative". They are attempts to reopen the government.

[Krayt]

This is The Way of Things. If a CR is on hold because the Republicans demand something, it's the Republican's fault. If the CR is on hold because the Democrats demand something, it's the Republicans fault.

CNN is in rare form the past few days.

[Moderation4ever]

The Republicans are getting the blame because the "Great Dealmaker" who can solve wars and trade impasses seem to have met his match in talking to the other political party.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares about "blame". Its a year to the midterms. This "shutdown" will be ancient history by then.

[Martinned]

So far the Regime is certainly trying to challenge Amartya Sen's famous dictum that famines don't happen in democracies.

[Bob from Ohio]

What is the "S" in "SNAP?

[Frank Drackman]

"Supplemental", see, it's supposed to be a "Supplement" to the food they grow/buy themselves.

[Bunny495]

The important thing is who's ox is being gored. First off federal employees not getting paid are unhappy. Same goes for lots of others sucking of the federal government's tit. Problem for the dems is most of these peeps were voting for dems anyway so dems will still be voting for dems and pubs will still be voting for pubs.

[loki13]

...and right there, we see exactly why the GOP is getting the lion's share (and should be getting all) of the blame.

Look, you can't simultaneously blame the Democrats for shutting down the government as a general message while, at the same time, gleefully tell people that the government is useless, federal workers are just "sucking of[f] the federal governement t[eat]," gleefully shitpost AI videos of terminating employees, jet about the world like it's not big deal, and gleefully engage in a little "MAS MARBLE, MAS GOLD" home renovation while giving pardons to crypto-billionaire buddies that you claim you have no knowledge that you were pardoning.

It doesn't .... work as a message. People might start to think that the only reason you shut down the government was to avoid releasing the Epstein files .... sorry, they might think that you actually want this! I know, weird, right?

And that's why it isn't working in these comments, either. Because the Trumpists spend half the time blaming the Democrats, and the other half of the time saying that it's so awesome that Trump has shut down the federal government.

I mean, you might not notice the cognitive dissonance, but other people do.

[Bunny495]

" Because the Trumpists spend half the time blaming the Democrats"

While sane peeps spend all of the time blaming pols from both sides of the aisle. You seem to have missed my point that who's ox is being gored is how blame is apportioned. If you are preaching to the choir you are not getting any converts. For the record I am all for releasing all the Epstein files. I also understand the Biden administration could have easily done this and for some reason did not. I tend to think there is a lot of embarrassing intel there but it is not so much about pols but "methods and sources" related to international spying. Epstein had at least lose connection to Mossad and the CIA; two organizations that you don't want to stir up a hornet's nest with. Of course there is also the possibility that there really is not much else in there. Lets not forget we still don't have a full release of the JFK assassination files.

[loki13]

Um, you understand that you are known by your posts, right? You can't "both sides it" when you consistently post one way.

Look, I am no lover of the Democratic Party (although I do choose to say the name correctly). Neither the Democratic Party nor the GOP represents what I would want, ideally. But I am not ever, ever, ever going to side with the GOP so long as they are this Trumpist monstrosity. Period.

Oh, about the Epstein files? I am going to point this out- this was always a niche Trump base (as in his base, not the adjective form) desire. Biden didn't promise to release it. Biden didn't run on releasing the files. Biden didn't have an attorney general who said the client list was on her desk. Biden didn't appoint an FBI director (and second) who spent the last few years on podcasts yapping incessantly about it. Biden didn't spend the first several months diverting resources to have AUSAs and FBI Agents working around the clock reviewing the Epstein Files. Biden didn't set up a photo op with left-wing influencers parading around the White House lawn (before it became the gold & marble construction site) with folders called the "Epstein Files."

This is a Trump deal. And you know it. Three reasons-

1. Trump hyped it and ran on it and said he'd release it. You know, like his healthcare plan.... HA!

2. There aren't pictures and birthday cards and a long documented history of Biden hanging out with his best pal and neighbor Epstein.

3. If Biden had a scandal like that, it was probably something involving Fatty Arbuckle.

ETA- and to get back to the main point, you can't both tell people that the shutdown is awesome and you hate the gummint and can't wait to lay people off and love jetting around and putting in gold & marble ... but also? It's totes the other side's fault. Doesn't work. Not for, um, sane people.

[David Nieporent]

I also understand the Biden administration could have easily done this and for some reason did not.

Not only is it a whatabout, but it's a really lame one. "Biden didn't do something he never said he was going to do, so therefore you should ignore the fact that we're not doing something we said that we were going to do."

[Bob from Ohio]

"most of these peeps were voting for dems anyway "

No "shutdown" has had any effect on the next election.

[Frank Drackman]

MTG was on Bill Maher's show Friday, Steve Banyon's been on it, Kid Rock, Nancy Mace, Ben Shapiro, Cheech & Chong, Louis CK, Shatner, RFK Jr, Roger Daltrey(how did I miss that one?), Kevin McCarthy, Pete Buttplug,
Guess who's never been on? Comes-a-lot.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Francis’ mother really did a number on him. Well, on all those guys, but it clearly resonated with him.

[Frank Drackman]

In a sane world you'd take the "Honorable Way Out" for insulting a woman who has more compassion in her little finger than in your entire disgusting corpulent body, given that the world's in-sane, why don't you take Snagglepuss's approach and "Exit, Stage Left!". Or just complete the Abortion your Mammy should have done years ago.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

More compassion? I guess her “friendliness” to all those guys can be seen that way, it’s just sad it messed you up so much that you’re here ranting about Harris months after she became irrelevant.

[Frank Drackman]

"All those guys" included Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen at the Army Burn Center in San Antonio, which was the model for the Burn Centers of today. Later on she worked mostly in Obstetrics and finished her career as a Hospice Nurse and until a few years ago was a Volunteer at the local Hospital, as Milhouse said about his Mom, she's a Saint.
OK, a Jewish one.
Hmm, maybe you're right, and I'm NOT her real son, I didn't inherit any of that compassion for others.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Of course she “served” a lot of sailors and marines.

[Moderation4ever]

Many of the more progressive liberals have skipped Bill Maher. I think it is a mistake on their part. Bill Maher is center left and the progressive are leaving themselves out of a big audience. Bill going to agree with them 90% of the time and 10% of differences they have should not keep them from the show.

[David Nieporent]

Bill Maher is not center left. He's contrarian provocateur/jackass.

[Moderation4ever]

What beliefs of Bill Maher's would you not consider center left? If he doesn't agree with you he will certainly call you out. But I expect that if the right wing nut jobs can defend their beliefs, then progressive should be able to do no less.

[Don Nico]

On Maher, the Very Stooopid MTG admitted that she did not even know that the Rothschilds were Jewish.

[Moderation4ever]

Baltimore Maryland is reporting success with a trial 2 year program offer a $1K per month payment for young parents between 18 and 24. I noted one paper focused on improvements in health, note better nutrition and reductions in stress. I don't see guaranteed income programs as a panacea but I do think they can be useful to some parts of the population. I hope exploration of these programs continue. I think that guaranteed incomes are likely to be very important as AI sweeps in and takes away many routine jobs that do provide sustainable income for people today. Supplemental guaranteed income may become increasingly important in the future. Again it may not work for all people but it should be a tool in the social safety net.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t get it. Why should able bodied people get a thousand dollars a month from people like me and you?

[Life of Brian]

At least one rational argument is that they're doing their part to continue the existence of the human race. This is just a scaled-up version of what we already do at the federal level.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t know why you and others should force me to support “the continued existence of the human race.” If that’s important to you, by all means act thusly and donate thusly, but why force me into it?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, you're clearly parody-fishing for something. Carry on.

[Malika la Maize]

“that they're doing their part to continue the existence of the human race.”

Someone hack your account, Bri Bri?

[Moderation4ever]

Well if they are working then the extra money can help them out of the paycheck to paycheck cycle. We need to think about how we are going to address people needs if the AI revolution happens. We are likely to find ourselves in the situation where there are no enough jobs for every working age person. Guaranteed income are one tool to address this problem.

[Frank Drackman]

Give them another $483 and they'll have enough to pay the average rent in Baltimore.
Why not $10,000/month? or $100,000??
Wait, I've got a Brainwave,
One Hundred BILLION DOLLARS a Month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mwahahahahahahahah
It's not like you'd even have to print the money, it's just "1"'s and "0"s on a Hard Drive

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

The assumption is that the people are working and the $1K per month gives them some breathing room. The payment will not cover the rent, but it might give them a buffer that they did not have before.

[Poxigah146]

And then we should continue importing tens of millions of low income immigrants too, amirite?

[Moderation4ever]

Well if we need the workers yes.

[Bunny495]

Cliff Note's version. Govt starts program and says it is working.

[Malika la Maize]

A spokesman for the North Carolina Republican Party appeared to threaten the news outlet ProPublica — citing “connections” to the Trump administration — over a story it reported and ultimately published on a prominent conservative state Supreme Court judge…

“I’m sure you’re aware of our connections with the Trump Administration and I’m sure they would be interested in this matter,” Mercer said in an email that ProPublica published.

He added: “I would strongly suggest dropping this story,” underlining “strongly” and putting it in bold type.

After the story published, Mercer doubled down in a social media post, urging Trump to “feed ProPublica to the USAID wood chipper,” referring to the president’s termination of thousands in funding and grants from the foreign aid agency earlier this year.

It’s unclear if and how Trump would retaliate against ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that does not receive government funding and relies on private grants and donations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/31/republican-north-carolina-propublica-trump/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika — What is unclear? Private grants are a vulnerability. Trump is practiced at leveraging that, and willing lawlessly to invade private government info to identify targets.

This nation has been changing so fast that necessary habits of thought must be adjusted faster too.

There is still almost zero focus on this blog about means to counter a nearly-certain election legitimacy crisis which will unfold suddenly less than a year hence. Only precautions thought through and mobilized in advance are likely to prove timely enough to be effective.

[Martinned]

It’s unclear if and how Trump would retaliate against ProPublica

I would imagine the answers are "as soon as he finds out that ProPublica exists" and "by suing and/or prosecuting them".

[Moderation4ever]

Caught an article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal on the penny. It appears that getting rid of the penny is more of a problem than one might think. Since the President's decision to stop minting pennies the supply has dwindled. I agree with the President's decision as the penny cost more to produce than its own face value. The existing pennies should be sufficient, but the reality is that people tend to hoard pennies. Most people don't use pennies but rather just throw them in a jar at home, I do. Businesses still need pennies for change and if they don't have the pennies they are force to round down to the nickel. Seems simple enough but it can cost small business that do most cash transaction lots of money. America should get rid of the penny but we should also develop practical rules that allow both rounding down and rounding up to the nearest nickel. This would be fair to the merchant and the consumer.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit! I always enjoy the "Take a Penny" jar at the QuikTrip, (and taking the Desiccant packs at Putomayo)

[ThePublius]

I saw a sign once at one of those 'take a penny' dishes that said "Need a penny? Take a penny. Need a quarter? Get a job!"

[Frank Drackman]

Do you ever take money from the Jar for the Kid with Cancer?? (Seems like it's always that same Kid)

Frank

[ThePublius]

I wonder, why does it matter that it costs more to mint a penny than it's face value? It's a useful token that aids commerce. Isn't that worth someting?

Now, if the intrinsic value was more than the face value, as in the metal value, that would be a problem. But that isn't the case anymore.

[Malika la Maize]

Hey, I agree with Pubes on something!

[Armchair]

"Now, if the intrinsic value was more than the face value,"

It's getting close. So, a pound of pennies is $1.81 (or 181 pennies). Pennies are currently mostly zinc (instead of copper, like they used to be). Zinc currently sits at ~$1.37 per pound.

If you assume 5% inflation per year, that means in 6 years, the intrinsic zinc cost will exceed the cost of a penny. At 3% inflation per year, it will take 10 years.

[Bunny495]

Problem is you have to process a penny to get the metal to use for some other purpose. Not sure how much that would cost. Since pennies are no longer being produced there would be a limited supply at which point any operation set up to process the pennies would run out of raw materials. This is why America no longer uses noble metals for it's coins. I can still remember silver dimes (and other coins made of noble metals) but they are long gone.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that they don't last terribly long in circulation now, because if people drop them, they don't pick them up again. They're no longer worth enough to bother.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW I was at my local Aldi's last week and they have stopped using pennies.

[Moderation4ever]

So how do they round to the nearest nickel. The article I referenced said that legally many business are required to round down. That could cost a business 1 to 4 cents on a cash transaction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not sure. I was in a hurry and wasn't really paying attention.
The only other place I've experienced rounding is at some scrap dealers who round to the dollar. Below $.50 round down, above $.50 round up.

[Moderation4ever]

Note that here the scrap dealer is the purchaser. What happen when you are the purchaser, the bill is $6.76 and the seller rounds to $6.80? Do you feel cheated or just assume it works outs, that rounding up and down and that you end up paying no more on purchases over a long period? I would accept the idea that round up/round down averages out and the penny is not needed.

[Michael P]

How long will it take before the intolerant scolds on the left drive John Fetterman from the Democrat Party?

https://thepostmillennial.com/fetterman-urges-dems-to-stop-labelling-republicans-as-fascists-and-nazis

[Armchair]

It started last month.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/16/john-fetterman-senate-primary-pennsylvania

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you hate democracy?

Oh wait, I know why.

[Armchair]

Intolerant Scolds are part of Democracy too.

[Sarcastr0]

So are party primaries.

[Armchair]

Glad you approve of driving Fetterman from the party.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, RINOs!

[SRG2]

Yes, indeed not all Replicans are fascists or Nazis

[Moderation4ever]

I don't know because it was the left that first elevated Fetterman. They wanted John over Conner Lamb who they saw as a Corporate Democrat.

[Martinned]

It's fascinating how Trumpists are suddenly acting as if they don't understand the difference between cancelling someone and not voting for someone because you don't like their politics. I swear I've even seen people lamenting how poor Andrew Cuomo is being cancelled in New York.

[Poxigah146]

I just read that Stephen Miller's extended family is calling him "evil" because he doesn't support filling America with worthless third worlders.

Goes to show how hateful and bigoted leftist Jews are.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, surely all the “the left are teh real anti-Semites” here are going to jump in and rebuke this guy now, amirite?!?

[Poxigah146]

It's anti-Semitic to criticize Jews becaus3e they're Jews. It's not anti-Semitic to criticize Jews or racist to criticize blacks because they disproportionately engage in anti-social behavior.

[Malika la Maize]

It's anti-Semitic to criticize Jews becaus3e they're Jews.

Again, silence from the MAGAns.

[Poxigah146]

What part of what I said do you disagree with, fuckface?

[Michael P]

These findings demonstrate that, despite intentions of slum clearance and neighborhood revitalization, public housing reinforced existing patterns of economic and racial segregation and reduced long-run economic opportunity, although effects were largely confined to project neighborhoods themselves.

https://beaubressler.github.io/papers/public_housing_neighborhoods/jmp.pdf

Bressler calculated the damage that those leftist policies did, so it's technically not incalculable, but when will people finally admit that the left both intended to and actually did form a permanent underclass out of Black Americans?

[Malika la Maize]

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/black-poverty-rate.html#:~:text=//,the%20highest%20rate%20on%20record.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a paper from a PhD candidate.

It seems to be from his personal website.

It's not peer reviewed.

Neither you nor I have the expertise to evaluate the methodology here, so this is currently just an assertion.

the left both intended to and actually did form a permanent underclass out of Black Americans
And this is not what the paper asserts.

And you crusading for the poor black people trips my BS meter pretty hard!

I may dig in later; I got time these days.

[Michael P]

The denialist brigade comes out to ad hominem yet another comment. Yawn.

[Sarcastr0]

Not peer reviewed isn’t an ad hominem.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure what I'm revealing about myself but if I had to pick between Cuomo and Man-damn-he, I'd have to go with the Ugandan.
I know it's like choosing between Ass-Rape from Jerry Sandusky or Tongue-Kissing Dr. Rachel/Richard Levine, but the choice is obvious.
See what I did there? I said the choice is obvious, but which choice is the obvious one??? I know which one I'd pick.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

What Zohran Mamdani has done is run an excellent campaign. You may not like his policies but he has addressed people concerns. He looks good and he speaks well. He also benefits from the fact that he never had a good opponent. It not my city to vote in, but I go with Mamdani and look for better choices to come out in 4 years. Hopefully in a city of 8.5M there is someone better that Cuomo and Silvia for 2029.

[Martinned]

I continue to be fascinated that, for two mayoral elections in a row now, the New York City GOP could do no better than Curtis Sliwa.

I suppose there's a lesson there about the ever-decreasing federalism of the two major parties. Compared to, say, the 1970s they find it harder to run local candidates (or state-level candidates) who disagree with the national party/the president on issues. The obvious consequence of that is that more and more state and local races are basically single-party affairs, and that can't be good for democracy.

[Bwaaah]

"The obvious consequence of that is that more and more state and local races are basically single-party affairs, and that can't be good for democracy."

Despite cries about "democracy," both parties, as a matter of routine business, seek and protect entrenchment of their positions wherever possible. Partisans are concerned about democracy just like they are concerned about laws, which is to consider which ones are being enforced and what risk that may present to their desired hegemony.

Strictly speaking, democracy is not a significant concern to partisans. Their expressions of concern are performative, and only in instances and particulars where such expressions advances their partisan interests. Otherwise, they express nada. Nothing.

That is not a new fact of political life. And today isn't your first day looking at it. Your "fascination" is performative, and snotty.

[Sarcastr0]

NYS and NYC are a terrible example to use if you want to talk party politics.
I grew up in NYS and went to HS in NYC. Until the past 5 years or so the GOP and Dems are purely branding; they pushed the same policies, and when there's a change of which part is in control, the previous one makes sure all the kickbacks are in the top lefthand drawer so they can maintain continuity.
-------------
Strictly speaking, democracy is not a significant concern to partisans
Unsupported cynicism. Favoring one party doesn't mean you discard respect for democracy.

Parties will jockey for the rules to be in their favor, but so far only one has tried to overturn a national election. Though their base did enthusiastically support them in that anti-democratic action!

[Bwaaah]

I'm 100% for the Ass Raper. For this round, I'm trying to keep everything above my shoulders unsullied.

(Which one is the Ass Raper?)

[Bwaaah]

OK. I'm sayin' it. I don't want any self-proclaimed "socialist" to be near any of my endeavors to improve life, for me or the people around me.

Mamdani's intended strategies are as feckless and bankrupt as the people here who argue in their favor.

I've experienced too much. I know too much. I know [some] stupid. That shit is stupid. It drains capital (in all its dimensions). Only a bum or a bum wannabe can get any long-term benefit from it.

I voted for NOT Mamdani. That means I voted for Andrew Cuomo. For me, it was an easy choice. (And he's really no worse than a Giant Douche.)

[Malika la Maize]

Auburn is firing coach Hugh Freeze just one day after the Tigers mustered three points in a disappointing home loss to Kentucky, the program's fifth setback in six games this season against SEC competition…

This will be the third time since 2020 that the Tigers will be searching for a new coach, which means Auburn will be footing the bill for another sizable buyout as well.

Freeze's buyout at Auburn is $15.4 million, almost identical to the total the Tigers paid out to Bryan Harsin eight games into his second season in 2022 amid inner program failures and on-field struggles. Freeze signed a six-year deal that same year worth $39 million.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/auburn-fires-coach-hugh-freeze-tigers-end-disappointing-tenure-after-dropping-to-1-5-in-sec-play-this-season/

[loki13]

Old SEC saying-

If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.

New SEC saying-

If you ain't buyin' out a coach's contract for tens of millions of dollars, you ain't tryin'.

[Frank Drackman]

As an Auburn Grad-jew-ate, if (The) Zoran Man-damn-he could sign a top 5 class I'd convert to Islam and give him my daughters.
Seriously, this is as bad as Auburn Foo-Bawl has been (and it's been bad) we've only beaten Georgia 3 times in the last 20 years, went 5-12 against Nick Satan (and fired the only Coaches who beat him)
Only Coach who had a winning record against Al-a-Bam-a (HT K. Jackson) was Senator Tuberville, and to be honest that was due to the Sanctions from the Franchione Error (no Typo)
Can't wait for Diego Pavia to give us his high hard one Saturday in Nashville.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

I think the team without Freeze will be inspired and we will surprise some people.

[Malika la Maize]

From ESPN

LSU currently does not have a president, an athletic director or a head football coach.

Louisiana does have a governor, Jeff Landry, who essentially fired the latter two and, having apparently solved all the issues facing the people of his state, is spending his time lording over the athletic department….

The question is whether the political involvement will hinder LSU from identifying the right athletic director/coach combination to lead the Tigers back to a national championship -- or worse, scare the best candidates away.

[loki13]

The answer to that is that what happened was so very, very stupid. The governor is a moron, and was riffing without a plan in an address ostensibly about SNAP benefits being cut off in an attempt to curry favor with voters, and, in fact, there was no plan.

While LSU has retreated from the position because it immediately sent signal flares to not only the college football community as a whole but to the LSU community in particular that showed that LSU was no longer nearly as attractive place to coach (seriously, he not only said that the AD would not choose, that the body he said was going to choose ... didn't actually know about this plan ... and he also attacked the agency and the agent who represents many of the coaches that LSU wants!!!) ... it did enough damage.

Don't expect the governor to backtrack publicly, because he's a politician, and more importantly, one of the new-breed Trumpist politicians who believes that his messes are other people's problems and facts are just inconvenient obstacles for what he announces reality to be be ... but behind the scenes the boosters and LSU are working to extricate themselves from the giant pile of poop he put on their doorstep and stomped upon.

[Martinned]

Clearly Donald Trump needs to appoint a new coach. I'm sure he'll come through for Louisiana in its time of need.

[loki13]

One of the many amazing lines written by F. Scott Fitzgerald-

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

Of course, any sentient being that reads that understands exactly what it says about Tom and Daisy. It is shocking, however, to see that when people observe it in real life, many of them say, "Hey, Tom and Daisy aren't doing anything wrong! Besides, whaddabout Hillary's emails?"

[Michael P]

I think it was Barack Obama who said, when excusing Stalin, Pol Pot and LBJ, "You have to smash up a few things and creatures to make an omelette."

Why do you think HRC should get away with smashing up things, creatures and email servers?

[Sarcastr0]

HRC...smashing up things, creatures and email servers?

Do you realize what a joke this is?

[Michael P]

The only joke is that you apparently endorse the idea that the proper language for that digital smashing is "wiped, like with a cloth".

[Sarcastr0]

As has been mentioned many, many times you're getting bent out of shape due to the usual protocol to dispose of something that once held classified data, to ensure it is not recoverable.

[Michael P]

Absolutely nothing that Clinton did was proper protocol for handling classified data. It's worth getting bent out of shape when people keep lying about something so basic.

[Sarcastr0]

After the existence of the server became publicly known on March 2, 2015, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails two days later. Mills sent an email to PRN on March 9 mentioning the committee's retention request. The PRN technician then had what he described to the FBI as an "oh shit moment," realizing he had not set the personal emails to be deleted as instructed months earlier. The technician then erased the emails using a free utility, BleachBit, sometime between March 25 and 31. Bloomberg News reported in September 2015 that the FBI had recovered some of the deleted emails.

Since this episode, Clinton critics have accused her or her aides of deleting emails that were under subpoena, alleging the server had been "bleached" or "acid-washed" by a "very expensive" process[106] in an effort to destroy evidence, with candidate Donald Trump stating the day before the 2016 election that "Hillary Clinton erased more than 30,000 emails as part of a cover-up."

Trump has also alleged that Clinton smashed her phones with a hammer to destroy evidence that was under subpoena. The FBI found that Clinton tech support aide Jason Cooper had hammered two old Clinton phones that had been taken out of service, an effective method to ensure that data on a phone is rendered unrecoverable, but there was no evidence Cooper did this in response to a subpoena. Cooper told the House Oversight Committee that when he upgraded Clinton's phones to a newer model, he would first transfer and back up data from the old phone before destroying it.

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

[Michael P]

You are easily distracted by squirrels.

None of your quote even suggests that the deletion was "the usual protocol to dispose of something that once held classified data", much less that the pre-disposal handling used a proper protocol.

[Stephen Lathrop]

loki13 — It's worse. Cultists long for more from Tom and Daisy. Cultists want to valorize their own impulses, and to encourage optimism that someday even vast carelessness can be theirs.

[Poxigah146]

Democrats in 1961: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Democrats in 2025: "I need my SNAP bennies to buy junk food for my 7 illegitimate kids."

[Malika la Maize]

Why are polls showing the GOP more to blame for the shutdown, huh?

[Frank Drackman]

Are those the same Polls that said Cums-a-lot was going to carry Iowa by 15 points??

[Malika la Maize]

Like I said, Francis’ mom did a number on him.

[Poxigah146]

The GOP has passed over a dozen bills to reopen the government. The Democrats are making unreasonable demands in adding health care subsidies for rich people.

[Malika la Maize]

Democrats in 2025: "I need my SNAP bennies to buy junk food for my 7 illegitimate kids."

lol!

[Moderation4ever]

Well then the Republicans should negotiate to find a reasonable number for who get subsidies. The "Great Dealmaker" takes on wars and trade but will not talk to the other political party. Why not?

[loki13]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.134.0.pdf

Judge Immergut's order (yesterday) on a preliminary injunction (not a TRO) in the Oregon/Portland case. Worth a read.

In addition, because the "full trial on the merits" already occurred, it is the precursor to the final opinion that will be issued on or before Friday of this week.

The most interesting part is in the likelihood of success on the merits section, because it contains an abridged version of the factual record (the facts that came out at hearing) that we see in more detail in the Final Order.

As usual, we quickly learn (even though the Court doesn't bother to underscore these facts) that the administration is a bunch of lying liars. The "facts" that the administration tried to use about the FPS (federal protective service) earlier?

Well, testimony showed that the FPS (by testimony, I mean the testimony OF THE FPS, not the BS affidavits of other people in the administration) didn't think that there was any problem, the FPS didn't make any request for help, and the FPS was surprised to learn that the National Guard was being deployed.

I will repeat what I keep saying- this administration lies. Constantly. They lie in press releases. They lie in court. They lie in affidavits. They habitually and instinctively lie.

[Estragon]

Proud of Portlanders. Humor and absurdity will be powerful weapons against authoritarianism in the days and weeks ahead. The frogs won this round.

[Poxigah146]

And when SCOTUS reverses, what are you going to say? This cunt belongs in a concentration camp.

[Estragon]

“Concentration camp”

Once again I encourage the community to take note of comments like this. If there is one constant I can identify from this comment section in the age of Don, it is that the seemingly outre remarks have a way of pointing the direction that Trumpism is heading.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn.

But even if SCOTUS reversed on the legal standard, it's not going to reverse the factual findings that Trump's people are lying liars who lie.

[Martinned]

With enough deference to the executive branch, it doesn't really matter that they're a bunch of liars.

[David Nieporent]

Well, testimony showed that the FPS (by testimony, I mean the testimony OF THE FPS, not the BS affidavits of other people in the administration) didn't think that there was any problem, the FPS didn't make any request for help, and the FPS was surprised to learn that the National Guard was being deployed.

The only thing that's saving the U.S. from full on fascism is just how fucking incompetent Trump and his people are. (Though to be "fair" to his people, I guess it's hard to create a fake paper trail to justify actions when the decisions to undertake those actions are made on the spur of the moment by tweet.)

[Don Nico]

I was glad to read in the NYT (Nov.2) the clarification by DOE Secretary Wright that "New Weapons Testing Won’t Include Nuclear Explosions." Wright explains that the tests are conducted on components of nuclear weapon components and sub-systems. They may include the detonations of high explosives, not not nuclear explosions.

Such testing has been planned and on-going for the past 20 years and is described consistently in the Nuclear Posture Reviews of Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Such tests are and have been done by Russia and China. In addition the US, Russia, and China have been are conducting major construction at their respective nuclear test sites for several years.

Hence Trump was saying nothing new when he announced, “I’m saying that we’re going to test nuclear weapons like other countries do.”

[Malika la Maize]

Fair point, thanks for the explanation.

[grb]

Don Nico : "Hence Trump was saying nothing new..."

For God's sake, don't pretend to be so dim:

1. Trump heard Putin was testing the delivery system for a new nuclear weapon. Now you and I know the Russians haven't done a nuclear test in decades, but Trump's brain is rotted-down to mush. He thought they had done a new nuclear explosion test and flew into a senile rage.

2. One of his handlers calmed the addled old fool and cleaned up after his embarrassing mess.

There was a time you insisted ( insisted! ) you weren't just another cult bootlicker, Don Nico. What happened?

[Don Nico]

I expected to read some stupidity from you, grb.
I wrote a factually accurate post and cited open sources.
You number 1) is a LIE. Everyone with a functioning brain knows that NO COUNTRY has done a nuclear explosion since the DPRK several years ago. But you with your TDS claim that it is Trump with a rotted brain. What the Russians did is to fly a nuclear reactor for over 6,000 miles - a nuclear test, but not a nuclear explosion. You have no idea what he thought and that he did not realize it was a nuclear explosion.
Your number 2 is just an insult of a highly competent engineer and manager responsible for the US nuclear weapons program. What do you know? Squat!

I cited the relevant government documents, the NPRs. Have you ever read them? Do you know anything about the nuclear weapons programs in ANY country? Obviously not.

Your shtick is to try to insult me. That shows you to be just another fool that folds up to lick his own ass.

[Josh R]

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that NO COUNTRY has done a nuclear explosion since the DPRK several years ago.

It is almost certain Trump thought Putin recently did or was about to. That being said, I would not characterize Trump's brain as not functioning. It's just Trump being Trump, reacting with his gut without any filters.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that NO COUNTRY has done a nuclear explosion since the DPRK several years ago.

What does that claim have to do with Donald Trump?

Your number 2 is just an insult of a highly competent engineer and manager responsible for the US nuclear weapons program.

Um, there was no insult of anyone but Trump in #2. Maybe you know something about nuclear weapons — though your area of scientific expertise appears to shift from moment to moment — but you don't reed gud. He was praising the person you're talking about.

[David Nieporent]

Hence Trump was saying nothing new when he announced, “I’m saying that we’re going to test nuclear weapons like other countries do.”

Your claim only follows if you assume that DOE Secretary Wright was merely announcing Trump's order rather than rewriting it into something sane.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico's commentary on this nuclear testing subject has been incoherent. It began with an expression of concern about the U.S. maintaining parity with adversaries allegedly in the process of developing or deploying novel nuclear weapons systems. That would presumably require nuclear detonations to confirm that novel concepts worked as planned. The history of test detonations of nuclear devices has proved more a history of surprised expectations than otherwise.

Now Nico's focus has changed, to tests of non-nuclear bomb components. Those, of course, could readily prefigure detonation tests of fully assembled bombs, and probably would do so in the case of new types of weapons using novel explosive principles, or novel modes of attack.

Trump himself, of course, is a worthless source of information on a subject nobody would suppose he would even try to grasp, no matter who explained it to him. That said, Trump did ramble a bit during a 60 Minutes interview this weekend, without saying anything except that he was better informed than the press about something-or-other relating to foreign nuclear tests. Trump repeatedly refused to enlighten the American public about stuff he said he knew, about activities foreigners doing them knew about, for no reason Trump even tried to explain.

[ducksalad]

Hence Trump was saying nothing new

That is true. But as grb points out, he thought he was saying something new.

[grb]

Exactly. The premise of Nico's flailing defense is Trump's did nothing more than restate the standard U.S. policy and practice of highly-advanced modeling analysis of nuclear weapons. Trump's "order", with all its braindead high drama, was to do nothing more than what DOD has already been continuously doing for the better part of fifty years. Trump's rage at discovering other countries were testing then becomes inexplicable, since they've been doing the same kind of high-level analysis as well.

The tweet is linked below. Obviously no one can read it and believe Nico's B.S. Also, as Stephen Lathrop points out above, Nico himself read it as a new order to conduct the first atomic explosion tests by a major power in almost thirty years.

Here's what's really funny : Dogsbody Nico then created a laughable defense for Trump ordering new explosion tests. Per him, it was warranted because the Russians & Chinese were still creating new weapons therefore have a "cold war mentality". Such was the rush to tongue-polish DJT's shoe leather, Nico forgot we're continually creating new weapons too. By no discernable logic or reason, he "determined" the order was justifiable even though he admitted explosion tests serve no independent purpose. But when DOE Secretary Wright did cleanup after his imbecile boss, Nico then sped to defend Trump per the new set of facts.

Speaking of cleanup, Don Nico reminds me of the guy with pan and shovel who follows behind the elephant in a parade. It must be a low & demeaning job, but he seems born for it.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115460423936412555

[grb]

So, Norah O’Donnell of CBS News asks Trump about his pardon of the convicted money-launder, Changpeng Zhao:

“The government at the time said that CZ had caused ‘significant harm to U.S. national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around,” said O’Donnell. “Why did you pardon him?”

She might also have noted Zhao helped drug dealers, pedophiles, child pornographers, and human traffickers because that's equally true as well. Trump responded as you'd expect given he only has half a functioning brain, starting a long rambling word salad with this : 'Okay, are you ready? I don't know who he is'. He went on to say, 'I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you're talking about the Biden government.'

'This man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He's highly respected. He's a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That's my opinion. I was told about it,' Trump claimed.

Somebody (unknown) told Trump something (unknown) so he pardoned this "highly respected" criminal money launder for terrorists & pedophiles - despite knowing nothing about him. If your senile old grandfather was suddenly caught out for some embarrassing misdeed, he'd make a better show of an excuse and Trump had a week to prepare beforehand.

O'Donnell noted the money Zhao had channeled into Trump's crypo business, including a $2 billion purchase of the company's stablecoin just before the pardon. “How do you address the appearance of pay-for-play?” she added. President Deer-in-the-Headlights had this answer :

“Well, here’s the thing, I know nothing about it because I’m too busy.” He then added “Norah, I can only tell you this. My sons are into it,” said Trump. “I'm glad they are, because it's probably a great industry, crypto. I think it's good. You know, they're running a business, they're not in government.” Thus two billion dollars.

When the reporter asked a follow-up, the response was this : “I can't say, because… I can't say…I'm not concerned. I don't… I'd rather not have you ask the question,” Trump said, according to the full CBS transcript of the interview.

Haven't we come a long way since the Cultists here worried about Joe Biden's "diminished state" or stayed in a constant state of hysteria over little Hunter's petty hustles?

[Malika la Maize]

Trump’s pardon history is very sus, but the cultists here can’t criticize him lest trans bureaucrats come and make the pee sitting down.

[Joe_dallas]

Biden or one of his subordinates pardoned/clemency / etc quite a few more and under dubious circumstances via the autopen

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks for making my point, dimwit.

[Paladin_44]

Touche!

[loki13]

Look, any good Trumpist will tell you that you can't be concerned small things like pay-for-play, when you have to look at the big picture!

Trump is doing exactly what they elected him to do- turn the White House into a bad version* of an Qatari Emir's palace.

*I mean ... let's be honest. If you're going "marble and gold," you have to pay for the material, not do it on the cheap.

[Estragon]

Didn’t they claim all the gold accents were real gold and paid for by Don?

[loki13]

...I know better than to believe anything this administration says.*

Like a stopped watch, it's possible that they say something truthful, but only as an accident.

*Don't forget that this is the same administration that told us that this monstrosity of a ballroom would be located next to the White House ... not even touching it. Remember that? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Oh, and the Lincoln Bathroom? Here's Trump on that-"It’s actually Art Deco. And Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and Civil Wars…But what does do is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built a bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time because the Lincoln bedroom is, uh, so incredible, for those of you that have seen it."

How many ways is this wrong? Let's see!
1. Plumbing was put into the white house in 1833. It wasn't "gold and marble" then.

2. Lincoln (Mary Todd Lincoln) famously did do some renovations ... but it was "famously" because she was a spendthrift. Which ... I guess Trump shares that with ... a different Lincoln.
https://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/the-white-house/changes-white-house/index.html
Carpets and drapes, not marble and gold.

3. Truman did renovations (as did GWB).

Now, with all of that out of the way... I honestly don't care about the bathroom renovation- not like the friggin' tearing down of parts of the East Wing and the grounds for the installation of the monstrous ballroom/bunker. I think that the bathroom is tacky AF, but ... whatever. What is beyond bizarre is Trump lying about it being in any way historically appropriate or tied to Lincoln or whatever. That's pure friggin' rubbish. If he wants to renovate a friggin' bathroom into his own marble palace so he can sit on the toilet and post to social media, more power to him I guess. Just don't lie about it (because it's stupid) and don't destroy the exterior of the White House and add a monstrous appendage that forever alters the way it looks.

My name is Trump, king of kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Joe_dallas]

loki
How many basketball games did you play on Obama's basketball court?

[Joe_dallas]

Amy Coney Barrett makes a simple and obvious point in her interview with Ross Douthat: Originalists become willing to overturn stare decisis in proportion to living constitutionalists' willingness to rewrite the constitution to suit contemporary political preferences.

The more precedents you have fitting the latter agenda, the less reverence Originalists will show toward precedent.

[Sarcastr0]

Originalists will not overturn good precedents, but they will overturn bad precedents.

Amazing stuff.

You ever manage to figure out anything about living constitutionalism other than 'all the bad Justices do it?'

[Joe_dallas]

1Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Gaslighto comment - "You ever manage to figure out anything about living constitutionalism other than 'all the bad Justices do it?'"

What part of the living constitutionalism methodology is anything other than - "the law is what we want it to be" that you cant grasp?

[Sarcastr0]

All of it. No living constitutionalist will read stuff like 35 years old out of the Constitutional text.

As to the methods, the are of course a lot since LC is defined as 'everything not originalist [and some originalist.]

Some interesting ones -
*Original application (Balkin - it was cited on Sunday)
*Purposivism (see: Breyer, Richard Epstein, Cass Sunstein for a variety of takes on this)
*Common law Constitutionalism (the basic practice before originalism came along; Holms and Marshall are particular referents)
*Current public meaning
*Common good Constitutionalism (Vermule)

Each of provides a method quite different from 'the law is what I want it to be.'

[loki13]

If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend reading Holmes' book The Common Law (1881). It is such a good read, although the Greek and Latin use that was common at the time is a little more than the modern reader is used to.

It was originally a series of lectures that Holmes summarized, and it is a reminder of what a powerful thinker he was.

[not guilty]

There is one disgraceful "originalist" decision that took a civil war and a constitutional amendment to overturn. Chief Justice Taney wrote:

The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?

It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves.

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 403 (1856).

We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings.

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

Id., at 604-605.

"Originalist" is just a euphemism for stone cold racist.

[apedad]

Which Originalism are we talking about?

Actual Originalism
Fair-weather Originalism
Framework Originalism
Halfway Originalism
Intrinsicist Originalism
Instrumental Originalism
Liquidated Originalism
Original Intent
Original Law
Original Meaning
Original Methods Originalism
Original Public Meaning
Process-Formalist Originalism
Semantic Originalism

[Joe_dallas]

Living constitution - is nothing other than that is the law as we want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another failing to grasp ' living constitutionalists' willingness to rewrite the constitution to suit contemporary political preferences."

[Malika la Maize]

Simple man has simple answers

[Sarcastr0]

Making up you own definition and getting mad people don't agree with it.

Are you like this in real life?

[Joe_dallas]

Simple - no matter how hard to try, there is no justification for living constitutionalism. Its a BS methodology.

[Sarcastr0]

There's plenty of justification:
1. The framework structure of the Constitution leaving purposeful ambiguities and gaps,
2. Founding era judicial opinions (e.g. Marbury),
3. The judicial practice for most of our Republic,
4. The history of originalism, which is in no way better than your strawman LC - it was a political project based on an outcome-oriented hostility to the Warren Court, not some plan to return to fidelity to the Constitution.
5. Originalists nowadays. They insist theirs is the only legitimate method, but disagree among themselves what that method is.

[apedad]

JD - those are descriptions that VC bloggers (not commentors) have used or posted (not from me!).

[loki13]

Not sure if someone else has already covered it, but in international news, Israel is having a major scandal because of the resignation and arrest of the top military lawyer.

She stated that she authorized the dissemination of a video of Israeli soldiers involved in the beating (incl. stabbing) and raping (forcible penetration of the rectum with a sharp foreign object) of a Palestinian detainee.

This was a major scandal in Israel, and part of the evidence that now includes a shocking number of abuses against Palestinian detainees in Israeli control. The reason she authorized the release is because:
""I approved the release of material to the media in an attempt to counter false propaganda against the army's law enforcement authorities."

That's right- the far right that is part of Netanyahu's government was trying to make this case go away as they do all of these cases by blaming the people who were trying to enforce the law and restore honor to the IDF.

Anyway, just a sign that there are those in Israel, like those here, who still fight against the lies of creeping authoritarianism.

[Estragon]

“Unfortunately, this basic understanding — that there are actions which must never be taken even against the vilest of detainees — no longer convinces everyone”

Yeah, no kidding.

[loki13]

The parallels are ... yep.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Truly shocking.

It reminds me of that case in Iran where a top official resigned and got arrested for encouraging the abuse of prisoners.

Just kidding, I haven't heard of a parallel case of an Iranian official being arrested by the Iranian government for human-rights violations.

[Malika la Maize]

Is your defense of Israel here “well, I’ve heard of worse things in Iran?”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm anti-anti-Israel, meaning that I'm not prepared to defend everything they do, but I deeply distrust her enemies who want to portray Israel, or "Zionism," as the focus of evil in the modern world. I really don't like the behavior of her enemies, not just toward Israel but towards others.

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika is in overdrive this morning.

[Bored Lawyer]

In a prior thread, there was a discussion of antisemitism on the right, and Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Nick Fuentes. I pointed out that Sen. Ted Cruz had strongly condemned it.

This weekend, Rep. Dan Crenshaw joined Cruz's condemnation.
https://azat.tv/en/dan-crenshaw-joins-ted-cruz-in-rebuking-tucker-carlson-over-nick-fuentes-interview/

So some prominent people in the Republican party have been resolute on the issue. Credit to them.

Contrast this with the spineless reaction of Democrats to their own problems with the same issue. Other than Sen. Fetterman, I can't think of anyone who has spoken up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Five years ago, if I was talking to my father…at 8:59 p.m. at night, he would say “Randy, I’ve got to go, Tucker Carlson is going to be on.” But make no mistake. Today, Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous anti-Semite in America. He has chosen to take on the mantle of leader of a modern-day Hitler youth, to broadcast and feature those who celebrate the Nazis, those who call for the extermination of Israel, to defend Hamas, to even criticize President Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Friends, make no mistake. Tucker is not MAGA."

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/maga-lawmaker-calls-tucker-carlson-the-most-dangerous-antisemite-in-america/

[loki13]

That is utter bullshit, and you know it.
Jerry Nadler. Brad Sherman. Jan Schakowsky. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Steve Cohen. Suzanne Bonamici. Lois Frankel. Brad Schnieder. Jamie Raskin. Mike Levin. Kim Schrier. Jake Auschincloss. Sara Jacobs. Becca Balint. Dan Goldman. Greg Landsman. Seth Magaziner. Jared Moskowitz. Laura Friedman. Eugene Vindman.

What do they all have in common, other than being Democratic members of the House? I think you know. (FWIW, there are four Republicans).

And the Senate? Ten current Senators, all Democrats. Okay, nine and Bernie.

I get it. You're trying to score political points. But if your big political coup is, "Hey, isn't it brave that two .... TWO GOP Senators have finally broken from the Trumpist train to start saying ... Um, we need to be worried about all this anti-Semitism from these VERY FINE PEOPLE and OMG, what have the Democrats ever done for the Chosen People, AMIRITE!!!!???!!!"

You are so far down the justification wormhole you will never escape.

Anti-semitism must be destroyed, root & branch, from society. But my god, man, do you know nothing about any of our history? WHERE DOES AMERICA FIRST COME FROM????

ETA- FFS, look at the threads here. When you see someone veer off into vile anti-Semitism, I can guarantee that he isn't some leftist. And we both know it.

[Sarcastr0]

"Actually, The open neo-Nazis in my party is a sign of health.

The left, with their lack of open neo-Nazis, are the ones with the real problem."

[loki13]

Look, the right is busy making sure that everyone on the right is okay with a "Nazi streak" or just "boys being boys ...."

They have to normalize and platform the open neo-Nazis for a while before fully mainstreaming them into positions of authority.

[Estragon]

“positions of authority”

Yes, and until such people can be installed in such places, it is useful to warehouse them in roles like “White House liaison to DHS.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's the chance that B Hussain Obama will go to prison?

[David Nieporent]

Racist still can't spell correctly.

Also: the chance is zero. This has been a Very Special Episode of Simple Answers to Very Very Stupid Questions.

[grb]

Given he committed no crime, 0%.

What's the chance you'll have pathetic little porn fantasies about Obama going to prison? Given the vacuous state of your mind, knowledge, standards, ethics - and limited connection to to the real world, 100%

[David Nieporent]

Given he committed no crime, 0%.

Even if he had, he'd be immune thanks to Trump!

[Poxigah146]

I would rather see him stripped of his citizenship and deported to sub-Saharan Africa.

[Bored Lawyer]

That he has seen his political legacy go up in smoke is more punishment than prison. (He did get one thing right: Biden's ability to F--- things up.)

[pdshaw]

On Halloween, the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Bivens Act, which authorizes "any person to bring a civil action against any person who, while conducting civil immigration enforcement, knowingly engages in conduct that violates the Illinois Constitution or the United States Constitution. Establishes remedies for violations of the Act. Creates criteria that are to be used in determining the amount of punitive damages that will be awarded under the Act."

https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=1312&GAID=18&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=157202&SessionID=114

I wonder what on earth made think think using "Bivens" in the name? Everyone knows "Bivens" is a past-tense law.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The harms of surrogacy (baby-buying) are so great as to attract calls for banning it.

Who is voicing this criticism? Some Trump-loving culture warrior?

Actually, it's "the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls" who wants to see surrogacy "eradicat[ed]" because “the practice of surrogacy is characterized by exploitation and violence."

https://firstthings.com/the-surrogacy-exploitation-crisis/

[Malika la Maize]

Please do IVF next, Cal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm proud of the "culture warriors" who point out the evils of surrogacy, IVF and other idols of modern secularism.

I also enjoy pointing out when someone who *isn't* one of the usual "culture war" suspects denounces one of these evils. It shows that reality can get through to the most unlikely people, including UN people. And it challenges people like yourself to go beyond slogans against the hated Other and come up with actual arguments in favor of the things you support.

*Do* you support surrogacy? If you don't, here's a great chance to proclaim your agreement with this UN person. If you *do* support surrogacy, here's great chance to show why, other than a desire to hold a different view from the hated "culture warriors."

[Mr. Bumble]

Have there been any reports of anyone starving yet because their EBT card hasn't been recharged?

[Malika la Maize]

Armchair weeps.

[Armchair]

Only been 2.5 days. Takes longer than that to starve.

But I do weep. It's an easy fix. Pass the CR. Feed the Hungry. It's that easy. Don't be evil.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for the riots.

[Estragon]

What then?

[loki13]

Just a reminder about what is going on with the tariffs case. After you strip away a lot of the excess verbiage, it's pretty simple-

1. A tariff is a tax on Americans. Period. You need to start by remembering that. When Trump says, "I am imposing a Kajillion Percent tariff on Oceania," Oceania does not pay the tariff. The American (the company or individual) who is importing the product from Oceania pays the tariff as a tax to the government.

2. Tariffs (and all taxes) are within Congressional authority in Article I, sec. 8. It's the very first sentence-
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

(If you aren't familiar with language, duties, imposts, and excises are the old-timey language for what we call tariffs.)

3. The fundamental principle that started the American Revolution is that we were taxed (the Tea Act of 1773) without our representation, which is why this was explicitly and exclusively the power of Congress- we would not allow a single person to decide to tax Americans. As a reminder, the Tea Act was about duties (tariffs) as it continued the Townsend duties while exempting the East India Company.

In other words, can the Executive impose a tax unilaterally for any reason he wants to (for example, "I don't like that ad," or "I don't like the way that case turned out in Brazil," or "I don't like the fact that Columbia said we killed a fisherman," or "Ima just make up a bunch of numbers and impose taxes on penguins") for any reason he wants to, at any time he wants to, and have them last as long as he wants to?

Or ... maybe not? We will soon find out the answer to a question no one previously ever thought we might have to answer. See also, "Does Birthright Citizenship really mean, you know, what it says," and "What if the President really just wants to deploy the military in American cities ... we cool with that, amirite?"

[Poxigah146]

No. It's not a tax on Americans. It's a tax on American corporations, not Americans.

[OpinionsVary]

Given Trump also removed the de minimis threshold, surely it is both? Individuals now individually need to pay tariffs when buying goods from abroad. Technically this was always the case, of course, but the de minimis threshold meant as a practical matter most things most people individually bought were exempt.

[ducksalad]

I've had to pay, personally, about half a dozen times since March. As you point out it's the elimination of the de minimis threshold.

[John 4]

Corporations are people

[Armchair]

1. No. It's not a tax on "Americans." Period. No matter how many times you try to say this, it's not true. They are a tax on imported goods. The importing organization pays the taxes. You can argue how they may or may not be passed on, but the ACTUAL truth is, it's a tax on imported goods. Paid by the importing organization.

2. And Congress has delegated much of this power to the Executive Branch via law.

3. The Executive Branch is merely using the power that Congress has delegated it through law. Congress can reverse this any time it wants.

It's important to keep the actual facts accurate here.

[SRG2]

Paid by the importing organization.

And who are these importing organisations?

As companies typically pass on costs to consumers, tariffs are de facto taxes on American consumers, even if not de jure.

The Executive Branch is merely using the power that Congress has delegated it through law.

Which law?

[Armchair]

"And who are these importing organisations?"

A variety of people. Sometimes American individuals. Sometimes American corporations. Sometimes Foreign corporations. Sometimes foreign individuals.

"As companies typically pass on costs to consumers"
Typically. Even you can't say "always". Sometimes they don't.

"Which law?"
Too many to go into detail here. Start with the Tariff law of 1934, and work your way forward.

[Sarcastr0]

You are well far away from accuracy.

1. Do you know who imports goods into America? Waiving your hands doesn't change that it's generally Americans. And then, of course, the imported goods are post-tax passed on to American consumers.

2. Question begging is not sanitized with redundant 'by law' language.

3. This is begging the exact same question, including adding a 'through law' redundant intensifier.
If you feel you gotta use some legalish language to zuzh up your statement, that's a sign some part of you still has issues with it.

Standing on 'actual facts' is fucking rich coming from you, trying to come a loki.
Not because loki is a renaissance man, but because he doesn't hold forth on stuff he hasn't looked into. Whereas you seem to avoid looking into things because you prefer speculating your way to some MAGA version of events.

[Armchair]

1. "Do you know who imports goods into America?"
-A variety of people. Sometimes American individuals. Sometimes American corporations. Sometimes Foreign corporations. Sometimes foreign individuals.

2. Inaccurate use of of "begging the question"

3. Inaccurate use of of "begging the question"

[loki13]

*shrug* I could argue facts and the actual law, although-

1. I don't know who you are replying to. I make liberal use of the block feature once a person has proven to be untrustworthy or a bigot (or both).

2. It's really not worth it. Actual legal discussions here are almost always immediately derailed- best case scenario is someone regurgitating some stupid point they read elsewhere, worst is a whaddabout comment. Or, like when I posted the link to the Lederman Brief and talked about it briefly, we had Brett chime in that law is meaningless because the Left ruined it, so Trump can do whatever he wants. That, too.

[Armchair]

No better way for blinders than to block people.

[Sarcastr0]

It's kind of a commentary on how you're useless.

I'm into it.

[DDHarriman]

I bet this grey box ^^^^ is pretty fucking stupid.

[Armchair]

Nah.

What's amusing is Loki is interested enough to respond to the responses, but can't actually engage in the argument itself.

I'll give you this Sarcy. You've never degraded to that level.

[Bob from Ohio]

"can't actually engage in the argument itself"

Its because he's a thin skinned prick.

[Armchair]

Basically. He's so certain he's right, that he never considers alternate viewpoints.

To point. He considered that Puerto Rico (PR) must choose either independence or statehood. That PR might decide the current situation is best for it, and that was its own self determination....he consider that anathema. Ironically, he had the very colonialist mindset he was resistant against.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He's so certain he's right, that he never considers alternate viewpoints. "

Right. He blocks most anyone who dares offer an alternate viewpoint.

[ducksalad]

It's important to keep the actual facts accurate here.

Yes it is. So let me correct a few of yours.

Trump has invoked the IEEPA. It allows the president to apply sanctions, regulations, and prohibitions in case of "unusual and extraordinary threat ... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States".

The points under contention are:
(a) whether there is any actual emergency in the US when (for example) a Brazilian court finds a Brazilian ex-president guilty of a crime, or the president of Columbia claims that a fishing boat was sunk, or anything at all happens in the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands.
(b) whether the list of emergency powers in the IEEPA includes imposing taxes.

[David Nieporent]

(a) whether there is any actual emergency in the US when (for example) a Brazilian court finds a Brazilian ex-president guilty of a crime, or the president of Columbia claims that a fishing boat was sunk, or anything at all happens in the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands.

You forgot about the province of Ontario airing an ad truthfully quoting Ronald Reagan as saying that tariffs were bad.

[Armchair]

Now we're getting into the nitty gritty. Fun stuff.

a) "Actual emergency".
-I mean...there have been a LOT of "emergencies" with the US. Here's a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

Some of my favorites
"Executive Order 14064["
"Protecting Certain Property of Da Afghanistan Bank for the Benefit of the People of Afghanistan"
Executive Order 14059
"Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade"
Executive Order 14046
"Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons With Respect to the Humanitarian and Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia"

If you're going to argue the law should be clarified and restricted, I won't disagree. But...we're given the situation as it exists. And this is where it is. I can't realistically argue that Brazil is any different from Ethiopia for an "emergency". And you can't argue the law to apply one way for one president, and a different way for a different president.

b) "Regulations"

[ducksalad]

(a) This is the old argument: we all agree there have been usurpations in the past. Does that mean we should try even harder to clamp down on such things, or do we have to let new and larger ones happen because consistency-trumps-legality* or payback-outweighs-legality**?

And you can't argue the law to apply one way for one president, and a different way for a different president.

This sounds like the sovereign citizen going 85mph in a 45mph zone telling the cop that he can't write a ticket unless every single person who ever drove 46 mph or more also got a ticket. This strategy usually doesn't work for ordinary people.

(b) So yes, that is Trump's claim, that regulations include imposition of tariffs. There are two counter-arguments:

(b1) The regulations have to be reasonably related to the emergency. The president could not issue regulations on anti-lock brakes or duck hunting because Al Qaeda was plotting a bombing.

(b2) Taxation is not a regulation, or alternatively, the constitution treats taxation different than other regulations. Taxes must originate with the House of Representatives. Could they delegate it to the Senate? No. Could they delegate it to the President? Again the argument is no.

-------
*The Bellmore Theory
**The MAGA Theory

[Armchair]

a) No the argument is, "you need to change the law if you really want something done." Those "usurpations in the past" happened. What was the response? If it was "nothing" then you should expect usurpations in the future. Change the law, to affect everyone equally.

b1) "reasonable related"
-Easy and subjective

b2) "Taxes must originate with the House of Representatives."
And they did, with relevant law, including delegation for certain items to the President.

[ducksalad]

(a) You'd agree that "equally" doesn't imply an equal right to violate the law in clear and obvious ways. Most every law has been broken in the past, often some offenders got away with it with, but no reasonable person thinks that's license to violate going forward.

In cases that are less obvious, you could argue that past enforcement or non-enforcement set some expectations about what the law means. But even then, a policy of letting minor violations go doesn't necessarily means large ones must be tolerated.

(b2) I don't believe there was a specific delegation of the power to tax in the IEEPA. "Regulation" does not necessarily include "taxation" as a subset. My proof of that is the constitution: it specifically permits Congress to regulate trade and specifically forbids Congress to tax exports. The framers clearly viewed them as different things.

[Armchair]

1) "Most every law has been broken in the past, often some offenders got away with it with, but no reasonable person thinks that's license to violate going forward."

Actually no. There are lots of laws on the books that reasonable people think are license to violate going forward. Because they've always been violated. Speeding laws, Jaywalking laws, Marijuana laws. That's before you get to the entire list of "dumb laws." For example. "In Baltimore City: Though you may spit on a city roadway, spitting on city sidewalks is prohibited. You may not curse inside the city limits."

Laws need to be enforced to be valid. If they aren't enforced, if they are regularly "broken" with no penalty, then there is license to break them going forward. They might as well not exist. It's not about "some" offenders getting away with it. It's about "all" offenders getting away with it. It's about it being pointed out, visible to all...and nothing being done.

We're not talking about someone shoplifting or stealing and no one caught them. We're talking about someone shoplifting or stealing in full view of the cops saying "yeah, I'm stealing shit, what you gonna do?"...and the cops standing there and saying "nothing".

We've got 48 current emergencies. How many are "illegal"? How many have been called out? How many past emergencies have been declared "Nope that doesn't count". If the answer is zero, and you can reasonably point to some of them and say "yeah, that shouldn't count....but nothing was done," then you have a problem. The law isn't being enforced, and counts the same as a jaywalking law. There is license to break it going forward. Because it isn't enforced, it's never been enforced, and selectively enforcing now it just looks political.

If you ACTUALLY want it enforced....make a new law. Or repeal the old law and make a new law. And demand enforcement.

But that doesn't seem to be a priority.

[ducksalad]

We've about beaten this to death, but I'll just restate the speeding analogy: a history of letting drivers go 60 in a 55 zone doesn't mean we have to allow 85.

I'd say if the Ethiopia is 60mph then the current tariffs are somewhere around Mach 3.

[David Nieporent]

1. No. It's not a tax on "Americans." Period. No matter how many times you try to say this, it's not true. They are a tax on imported goods. The importing organization pays the taxes. You can argue how they may or may not be passed on, but the ACTUAL truth is, it's a tax on imported goods. Paid by the importing organization.

It's hard to know how much of this is economic illiteracy and how much is pure bad faith, though as always it's likely a mixture of both.

Let's just say that if Mamdani suggested imposing a special tax on the wholesale purchase of goods by private supermarkets in order to help fund his free bus plan, none of these bootlicking sycophants would be defending it as "Not a tax on American consumers."

[Armchair]

"It's hard to know how much of this is economic illiteracy and how much is pure bad faith,"

On your part? Both. Accurately describe what the tax actually is. Then go into what it may affect downstream. Mamdani would explain his tax as one on corporations.

[loki13]

Well, it's interesting to see how economics works in their minds.

For example-
When it's an issue like the minimum wage, you suddenly learn that they become VERY VERY interested in basic economic concepts. Or, for that matter, rent control.

On the other hand, when it comes to tariffs? Basic concepts of economics suddenly become ... unknowable. It's like ... magic! See, tariffs work like this- Trump gets money. And the money is created from .... places. Places that DO NOT AFFECT AMERICA AT ALL! It hurts bad countries and people, and somehow is never paid by American companies or consumers, and has no effect on the American economy, jobs, or inflation, because it won't cause any prices to raise, it just creates revenue from a magical source that must remain unidentified and unexplored.

And we mustn't think about whether any tariffs actually make sense- for example, is this a tariff on things that we need to make the things in our country (parts, supplies, logistic chains)? Is this a tariff on a product that we can't actually make in our country and therefor it doesn't really make sense to enact (certain agricultural products, like coffee, or minerals)?

And so on. You see, economics must be applied rigorously, except when we don't want to think about it too much. Tariffs aren't taxes (even though every economist will tell you that they are, and we talk about the tax on tea ... which was a duty, which is a tariff) ... because reasons.

It would be comical, if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Armchair]

What's fascinating here is that loki spends 5 (sorry 6) paragraphs deciding how "economics works in their minds"...but I'm blocked by him, so he never actually reads the posts about how economics actually "works in my mind"

[John 4]

And yet he’s better off for that.

[Armchair]

Sure. In the same way that a person who blocks any images or stories of poor people from his feed is, then confidently asserts "there are no poor people!"

[Sarcastr0]

Your petulance that loki doesn't make time for you tells us a lot about why you comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK David:

Let's keep this simple: Lobsters are only caught in Maine and New Brunswick (Canada) and only sold in Massachusetts supermarkets. And presume the Canadian and US dollars trade at par.

Because they are subsidized, Canadian lobstermen can afford to go haul every day with a boat price of $3/lb while American lobstermen can only afford to go once a week -- they need $4/lb to go every day -- there is extra bait, fuel costs, etc.

The supermarket buys them at $10/lb and sells them at $13/lb.

Trump imposes a 50% tariff so one of three things will happen.
1: Maine lobsters will be sold and the store price will go to $14/lb.

2: Canadian middlemen will accept $6 in profit instead of $7.

3: Canadian lobstermen will only get $2/lb.

[ducksalad]

Corrected versions of your options:

1. The store price goes even higher than $14/lb and/or Americans eat less lobster, because Maine is limited both by the natural resource and the number of fishermen, and therefore supply will go down significantly.

2. Canadian middlemen learned math in Nova Scotia rather than Maine, therefore, they are able to correctly calculate 50%. To compete with a $10 untaxed price for Main product, they have to sell at $6.66 x 1.5 = $10. Therefore their profit goes down to $6.66-$3 = $3.33.

3. Using your cost and profit numbers, but the correct tariff calculation, there is no possible way the middlemen could put all the cost on the lobstermen, unless the lobstermen literally paid the middlemen $0.34/lb to haul away the lobsters.

[ducksalad]

Some years back NYC elected a mayor, Bill de Blasio, who had at various times declared himself a socialist and even aligned himself with the openly Marxist Sandinista movement. Like most committed socialists he had unrealistic proposals and unreasonable hostility toward property owners.

Nevertheless, I don't recall a huge panic before his election. There were not calls for the US attorney general to revoke his citizenship. There were not congressmen proposing to declare him an insurrectionist under the 15th Amendment. And after all, why panic: city governments can't do all that much damage. They can waste their own budgets and cripple their own police but it has little effect outside the city limits. They can't actually create a totalitarian state, there are state and federal governments that can step in if things get out of hand.

So why the big panic over another foolish socialist mayor, Mamdani? I mean, mock him as much you like, he deserves it, but why the extra-constitutional stuff?

It seems to me he's less dangerous than de Blasio, since he can't even theoretically become POTUS.

[loki13]

Why?

Because every day the attention of MAGA must turn, like the shine on a school of fish, all at once, toward a new person to hate.

[DDHarriman]

You forgot to check your talking points, according to reddit there are other things you're supposed to be upset about.

[DDHarriman]

I think when elections are free and fair people should be free to choose those who govern them.

The only problem is the free and fair election part.

[Sarcastr0]

I listened to an interview with Maria Torres-Springer the deputy mayor of NYC.
https://www.statecraft.pub/p/how-to-run-new-york-city

She went through the different management styles of the 3 mayors she served under.

-Bloomberg was all about hiring good people and delegating to them.
-de Blasio had like 3 pet projects, and everything revolved around moving them forwards
-Adams was all about constituent services (lol).

[loki13]

Adams WAS all about constituent services!

I mean, I'm pretty sure Eric Adams was a constituent. And boy, was he serviced by that administration.

[David Nieporent]

So why the big panic over another foolish socialist mayor, Mamdani? I mean, mock him as much you like, he deserves it, but why the extra-constitutional stuff?

I mean, I think the difference between Mamdani and de Blasio is pretty… facially apparent. (IYKYK.)

[David Nieporent]

Amusingly, Twitter this weekend was filled with MAGA people attacking him with, "He's not a good Muslim because he supports gay rights."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They would say the same thing about being a good Jew or Christian, probably.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump on Mamdani: "I think I'm a much better looking person than him, right?"

Miserable dude.

[loki13]

"I mean, I think the difference between Mamdani and de Blasio is pretty… facially apparent. (IYKYK.)"

....well played. No notes. I laughed.

[Ska]

I have a similar outlook - he'll effectively be deBlasio II. He does have more charisma than deBlasio, but that doesn't mean he'll get more of his ideas enacted.

Mamdani's wife will probably not misplace $2B, so there is that plus. It would be nice if that didn't get memory holed so easily.

[ducksalad]

Had to go look it up, I don't follow NYC that closely.

They do boondoggles on a grand scale there. OTOH where I live they tend to max out around $10M but that's for 100,000 people, so it's approximately to scale.

[apedad]

Clive, Iowa - Drake coach dismissed, bar faces threats after man wears 'Hitler' costume at Clive Halloween party

A Drake University volunteer hockey coach has been dismissed, and a popular Clive bar is facing threats and backlash after images surfaced showing Donnie Gardner dressed as a Nazi at a business' Halloween bash. (Picture in video in story.)

Gardner confirmed he wore the outfit to KCCI Monday morning.

https://www.kcci.com/article/clive-bar-nazi-costume-backlash/69230720

Welp, OK.

[David Nieporent]

In other news, the GOP immediately recruited Mr. Gardner to run for Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that NaZi stood for National Socialism -- don't you?

HITLER WAS A BIG-GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST.

A Democrat....

[Absaroka]

Oh, blather. The party - which Hitler didn't found - had a socialist bent when Hitler joined, but he quickly abandoned all that. He made that clear to the German industrialists as part of the deals that got him into power.

Nazism was about ... whatever Hitler wanted (which was mostly rule the world and exterminate Slavs and Jews). It didn't even overlap all that much with the original Fascism in Italy. It surely wasn't focused on a certain way to organize society economically in the sense that Communism was (nominally, anyway, although communist societies generally devolved into keeping Mr. Big in power, like almost all autocracies do).

[Moderation4ever]

Now can you explain why all the western capitalists supported Her Hitler and saw him as a bulwark against the communist in the east?

[grb]

Two Points :

1. Hitler was not a "big-government socialist", much less one in all caps. In fact, according to Albert Speer he had minimum knowledge and no interest in economic theories or models. As long as the economy produced weapons for his dreams of military conquest, Hitler didn't care. This was borne out by National Socialism itself, a party that had multiple conflicting economic messages during its early years - with Hitler above letting it all play-out without any input. In the end, much of the socialist wing of the party met its end on the Night of the Long Knives. But this wasn't because Hitler decided to reject or repudiate it. It was because Germany's industrial oligarchs pledged to shift their financial assistance to Hitler - in short, he was bought-off.

2. I swear I've explained this to you multiple times, Ed, which brings me to Point 2 : I just had a long vacation but could already use another. And I'm convinced if you're ever right about ANYTHING, the government will spontaneously declare a national holiday in astonishment and joy.

So willya try harder?

[Dr. Ed 2]

UPenn School of Education tells the truth:

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G4mnwbwWMAA1caK-1-e1761937998120.jpeg

Priceless....

[Sarcastr0]

The thing about fascism in fact or in attempt is that it's overdramatic midwits who are the troops pushing it.

So you get some funny shit.

Federal prosecutors opposed Dunn’s lawyers’ motion to dismiss the charge, writing that Dunn was “recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/jury-selection-begins-case-dcs-sandwich-guy-rcna241563

[ducksalad]

Well, to be fair throwing a sandwich up close is slightly more serious than throwing that same sandwich from a protest line toward a line of officers 20 yards away. If someone threw a sandwich at me from 20 yards I'd think they were making a joke, from 2 yards I'd think they were trying to start something.

Perhaps that's the point the feds were trying to make in their own melodramatic way.

[loki13]

Look, we are talking about the same people who regularly file and prosecute charges for assaulting officers because, after they've been attacked by ICE and federal agents, their blood "assaulted" the officers.

That's right- if you punch me, my blood might assault you. EFF these authoritarian goons.

[Sarcastr0]

We better be keeping records of this shit. 'Just following orders' is not a shield for a lot of this whit.

At the very least we need a truth and reconciliation to address this fascist taint in our name.

I use fascist now not because it's super accurate but because some a-holes on here called using that word a call to violence, and I want to piss them off.

[loki13]

Well, in fairness, I am against what these fascist bozos are doing.

Which makes me anti-fascist. Now, I think being anti-fascist is a good thing (traditionally, I'd say that being anti-fascist is as American as mom and apple pie) ... but according to their twisted logic, all it takes is that and wearing a black t-shirt to a concert tonight and Ima scary antifa!

[DDHarriman]

If you think that's bad, wait until you see what they do if you're a parent and you show up at a school board meeting to protest the homosexual grooming or secret transing of your children!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Does the Second Amendment protect sandwiches?

[not guilty]

As another commenter put it, is the charge assault with a deli weapon?

[apedad]

California Sheriff Approves Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Data to Media Outlet

A single email from Butte County Sheriff Kory L. Honea set off alarms among concealed-carry applicants across Northern California.

In a notice dated October 23, 2025, Sheriff Honea told CCW applicants and licensees that his office had received a California Public Records Act request on October 13 from San Francisco Standard investigative reporter Tomo Chien. The request sought data about local concealed carry weapon applications.

https://www.survivalworld.com/second-amendment/california-sheriff-approves-release-of-gun-owners-personal-data-to-media-outlet/

The sheriff followed the law in releasing the info IAW Cali state law:

First, middle, and last name
Application date
License number
Current license status
City of residence
ZIP code of residence
Date of birth
Sex

I agree the law should be changed to allow less Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to be publically released.

[ducksalad]

I agree the law should be changed...

If there was a request for all government records of people who checked out pro-Palestinian books from the library, or all employees who had asked for a religious accommodation for a Jewish holiday, I'd think a 1st Amendment challenge would be valid even if the law allowed the request.

Would it be arguable that the law, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional because it harms those exercising 2nd amendment rights?

[apedad]

Good point.

HEY PROF. VOLOKH!

Why are library records held tighter than gun owner records?

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I think generally libraries are careful to not retain records of who checked out what, so their answer to questions is 'we don't have that information'.

My source for this is a handful of cases over the years where the police wanted the information and the libraries had the above policy.

n.b. for prospective killers: one case I recall is that hubby dies from exotic poison. Wife is suspected. Police ask library if wife ever checked out the toxicology book in the stacks that describes poison. Library says 'deliberately don't keep those records'. Police check out the book and find wife's prints on the relevant page.

[Sarcastr0]

FOIA has an exception for PII; all that would be redacted, except maybe city.

I can't speak to CA's version of the law.

[loki13]

I am going to regret this- not for the few people who care, but for the vast majority of the commenters here who don't understand legal arguments. But anyway-

https://www.justsecurity.org/123818/scotus-trump-tariff-separation-powers/

I recommend this because it's an excellent resources that outlines the arguments (for both sides) on the Trump tariff case is detail, and provides hyperlinks to the relevant documents (whether they are briefs, caselaw, or other relevant sources) for review.

It's an excellent overview of what should be the primary thrust of legal arguments, and while it doesn't cover everything*, it does an excellent job as a primer if you want to be well-informed prior to oral arguments.

*There has been some recent developments concerning the actual procedural and factual posture re: Yoshida, and what was really behind the strange language in that case (very very briefly ... it was about rebates at that point, and the administration switched up the argument because of it, and it looked like the Court was trying to to come up with a one-time pass to avoid the rebates etc.), but I don't think any of that will be relevant to the upcoming decision.

[OpinionsVary]

No mention of the limited Yoshida argument? If you read Yoshida, it doesn't just stay 'yep, you got tariff authority bro'. It gives a long list of factors that make these particular tariffs allowable, such as still being under the overall limit set by Congress. So if we assume that Congress implicitly incorporated Yoshida, then doesn't it stand to reason, it also incorporated the limits?

I ask because limited Yoshida turned up in quite a bit in the lower court and Federal Circuit rulings. The Federal Circuit, for example, couldn't find a majority to say that IEEPA didn't allow any tariffs - just that these specific tariffs weren't legal while leaving the overall question unresolved. Even if IEEPA allows tariffs, it doesn't allow these ones...

But that line seems to have dropped away and the assumption has seemed to galvanise in an all or nothing ruling.

[loki13]

In fairness, Yoshida isn't binding on SCOTUS. Or even close to it.

Not to mention that while it shares language, it was replaced by a different statute.

Honestly, I think a lot of the focus on Yoshida for purposes of SCOTUS is a red herring- but I could be wrong.

[loki13]

Today, in the annals of "justice delayed is justice denied..."

The Eleventh Circuit granted a writ of mandamus (held in abeyance for 60 days to give Judge Loose Cannon the time to do the right thing) to rule on the release of Vol. 2 of Jack Smith's report.

I know, shocking. Judge Loose Cannon has been sitting on it, and it took an appellate court to order that the undue delay has been going on too long (to evade appellate review) and to release an order.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of "Justice Delayed"
why is Charlie Kirk's killer still awaiting trial?
Lee Harvey Oswald was dead less than 48 hrs after murdering JFK

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think her official name now is "future Eleventh Court of Appeals Judge Cannon."

[loki13]

I was going to make a joke about that ... but ...

Here's the thing. With Trump, loyalty is always (and only) a one-way street. There are plenty of judges that have carried Trump's water that haven't done so ... as visibly as Cannon has, and as questionably.

It would certainly set up the messiest and most public confirmation battle in a long time. The vote was 56-21 for a district court position, and she avoided much scrutiny because she was in the batch with Toby Crouse.

We'll see. I'll put it this way ... if Trump's influence diminishes, I don't see her service being rewarded (in the judiciary) as she hopes.

Don't get me wrong- I am not saying it won't happen. This is the pay-for-play administration. But it's not like she has endeared herself to other members of the judiciary (including right-wing judges) or practitioners, and this might be a political battle that there isn't capital worth spending on.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She might cause less trouble as a court of appeals judge, one of a panel, than as a district court judge with more responsibility on a day-to-day level.

[loki13]

*shrug*

I am at least somewhat heartened by the fact that as a district court judge, she has to deal with all the "boring old cases" (criminal cases, FLSA cases, 1983 claims, and so on) that are the bread and butter of federal litigation.

Being a district court judge (with the exception of, um, certain one-judge areas of Texas) usually means that most of your time is spent on the bread & butter of life, not OMG MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVAR which tends to be not very exciting to people who are partisans first and not, you know, actually that interested in the law.

(I am being somewhat unfair to Judge Loose Cannon. Other than her off-the-wall Trumpism in a select number of cases, she does appear to have some lawyer-like experience and AFAIK, she isn't that bad in terms of her run-of-the-mill cases for a relatively new jurist.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Grudging respect to Britt Grant whose commitment to overruling Cannon appears to far outweigh her desire to be on SCOTUS.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Why are people so concerned about the possible (likely) election of Zohran Mamdani to be mayor of NYC?

A joke on a SNL debate skit* about his chances of doing all the big things he talks about (to paraphrase: "so will I be able to do this stuff? well, no") is telling.

[The possibility of keeping the police chief in place in notable.]

For some, the hysteria is that just stating the ideas scares certain people. Shades of a mild income tax in the 1890s being "communist."

Even if some fraction of his proposals were accomplished, it is threatening to some people. There is some prejudice mixed in.

His popularity and political skills concern some people. It also underlines his overall popularity. He does the work necessary to be a successful politician. A former Cuomo official had an op-ed in the NY Daily News that negatively compared him to Cuomo, whose general strategy is negative campaigning.

There is some concern, though what power he has to do much in this context is unclear, that he is anti-Jewish. OTOH, he has a lot of Jewish support, including the leading non-Cuomo vote getter in the Democratic primary. The opposition here is at best exaggerated.

I think the assumption was that Cuomo would win the primary. This helps explain why the Republicans did not have a competitive primary with the only option being Curtis Sliwa. Who still has more positive support (including from my Republican city council person -- I have also seen his campaign signs in my area) than Cuomo.

OTOH, Sliwa does like cats.

==

* The skit was okay. The Curtis Sliwa content was basically a one-joke bit about him being a target of some violent attack. Sliwa said more joke-worthy stuff, and that was tedious.

The final few minutes were an extended Trump riff. Trump is clearly a key issue in the election, but I think that was too much. There is enough of Trump on SNL as is. Focus on my NYC-specific issues.

[Armchair]

Sure...

From a practical level, Mandani is extremely inexperienced with...let's say poor...political ideas about how to realistically run a city of more than 8 million people, as well as some...negative views on a significant portion of the population of NYC. Let's address this separately.

1. Inexperience. Experience is important, especially in an executive role over a large population. Just taking into account the worker base, NYC has over 280,000 employees. Putting a guy with zero management/executive experience in charge of that many...not a great idea. That's before the political aspect.

2. Poor political views. Mandani, has some fairly extreme views on rent control and government-run institutions. To the extent he can actually accomplish them, prior history says it goes poorly. He doesn't have the experience or knowledge to know that. And in the end, it's the NYC taxpayer and citizen that pays the price.

3. Poor views about some of his residents. Mandani....doesn't like Jews. No way around that. And as an executive that has an active dislike for a large portion of his population, it's going to go poorly for that population. It's generally not good.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

1. People are concerned with inexperience, which is objectively a valid issue, though individual analysts are quite selective about it.

The people who run might have more experience, but they still regularly lack the specific type of experience required to run a city.

Mamdani has shown some experience in respectfully listening to different groups, for instance, which is an important part in politically managing a major urban city.

By now, he does not have "zero" management experience. He is correct in noting that Cuomo has a lot of the wrong type of experience. The other top option is Sliwa. Enough said there.

2. His "poor political views" as a whole are unclear.

The voters have shown much enthusiasm for his views. Some of his views have been exaggerated/skewed.

Of course, if people are conservative, they won't support his views. A liberal leaning city, however, would often be more likely to be supportive of them. As to the result of his policies, unclear.

A lot of fear-mongering is going on.

3. This is false, as shown partially by a large segment (perhaps around 40% by one poll I saw) of Jewish support, including Brad Lander, the highest-ranking local Jewish official.

He does actively dislike certain Israeli policies, which is not the same thing as actively disliking Jews.

"No way around it," to use a turn of phrase.

[Armchair]

1. There is "specific" experience, then there is general management/executive type experience. Mandani has neither. It's a problem. No corporation would ever put someone with Mandani's level of experience in charge of 1,000 employees...let alone 280,000+. Experience "listening" to people is not executive experience. This is not a legislative/represenative type role. It is an executive position.

2, His poor political views, regardless of perceived voter enthusiasm, are still poor. Rent control...doesn't work. It actually makes things worse. City-run groceries stores don't work. They just waste taxpayer money, then go out of business. Free bus fairs largely don't work. They make public transit more dangerous for riders and less reliable. Free childcare....but requiring teacher level certification...just wastes money. And then he's going to pay for all this by driving out the highest income individuals? Mandani's "views" are a practical textbook of how to destroy a city.

3. Even the Nazis had Jews in their ranks. But Mandani's views are pretty clear, and the Jewish population will pay the price.

[Brett Bellmore]

"2. His "poor political views" as a whole are unclear."

His poor political views are actually terrifyingly clear, which is why his defenders have to obfuscate them.

Of course, the voters have shown some enthusiasm for a carefully curated subset of his views. Who doesn't like being offered free stuff?

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP may try and run against him as the face of the Democratic Party in 2026.

They've spent a lot their bullshit time nationalizing him, and the Muslim haters are spun back up.

Redbaiters too but there aren't as many of those, even if Brett is loud and proud around here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From Sarcastr0s remarks, I gather that he isn't prepared to defend Mamdani's positions.

Sarcastr0 isn't saying, "Mamdani's views are perfectly reasonable, what are you haters going on about?"

Instead, Sarcastr0 denounces, in advance, any Republicans who suggest mainstream Dems share Mamdani's views.

It would be nice if mainstream Dems disavowed those positions - if only to prevent the evil Republicans from "pouncing."

[loki13]

Latest dispatch from the stupidest timeline-

https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/03/60-minutes-edits-donald-trump-telling-them-60-minutes-should-edit-donald-trump-talking-about-how-60-minutes-paid-him-for-editing-kamala-harris/

This is the second paragraph, which accurately summarizes what happens, and yes ... still makes my brain hurt...

60 Minutes edited out a segment where Donald Trump tells them to edit out a segment in which he brags about getting CBS to pay him because of them editing out part of an answer by Kamala Harris, and he notes that CBS clearly did the wrong thing in editing Harris in the same fucking sentence he tells them to edit out what he’s saying.

[Kazinski]

Lot of edits going on, a BBC whistleblower complained the BBC edited Trumps Jan 6th speech to make it appear he said:

"The doctored footage made it appear as if Trump said, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

When what he actually said was:

“We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

The 'fight like hell' line was 54 minutes later, after the Capitol had already been breached, not to mention that the people who actually heard that line were a 45 minute walk away from the already out of hand Jan. 6th riot.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/03/bbc-accused-selectively-editing-trump-clip-capitol-attack