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.

[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."

[kramartini]

Noop. § 533 governs the hiring of FBI agents and other "officials" and does not authorize the hiring of "attorneys". FBI agents "prosecute" crimes by gathering evidence and securing the arrest of suspects.

[David Nieporent]

Um, attorneys are, in fact, officials. FBI agents do not in fact prosecute crimes, at least not in the English language.

[not guilty]

There are at least two things missing in karamartini's analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 533: (1) nomination by the president, and (2) confirmation by the Senate.

Section 533 is one of four statutes which SCOTUS has opined that, read together, authorized the Attorney General to appoint Leon Jaworski as Special Prosecutor in the Watergate matter. The D.C. Circuit in In re Grand Jury Investigation (binding precedent in the jurisdiction where the instant subpoenas were issued) applied that analysis to the current Special Counsel appointment framework.

[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.

[David Nieporent]

This was literally the opposite of a "fishing expedition," though. It was narrowly tailored in time and scope. They only obtained the phone logs of a small number of members of Congress, and only for the 4 days surrounding the J6 insurrection.

[Kazinski]

So I suppose as long as the current administration limits their subpoena to about a week or so then no predicate is needed?

[David Nieporent]

The required predicate for a subpoena is relevance to an investigation.

[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.

[Don Nico]

"necessarily required"
does a very heavy lift in your reply.

[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.

[not guilty]

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.

Uh, "impeding" and "encouraging" are, for all practical purposes, antonyms.

Joe_dallas, were you drunk when you composed your comment?

[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.

[Martinned]

The bleeding edge of tech costs money.

So does a vast bureaucracy full of for-profit monopolies.

[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.

[Nelson]

So you’re saying something without any supporting evidence, but you think the onus is on everyone else to prove you’re wrong?

While that works great with rubes and marks, logical people know that if you assert something is true, you should actually have evidence that shows you aren’t just making stuff up.

Using the same logic as the guy who said, “The moon is made of green cheese” just proves that you are saying what you hope is true, not something that is actually true.

Care to link anything that supports your out-of-your-ass assertions?

[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

[Nelson]

You’re the one saying that in the scenario you laid out, what you claim is true is, in fact, true. And yet you have not once given any evidence, outside of your ignorant (as in you don’t actually know) assertion.

Do you actually have any basis for your claim or are you just saying, “The moon is made of green cheese”?

First prove there’s some rational reason to believe the moon is made of green cheese (in this case, that the Canadian healthcare system didn’t cover the drug before 2025), then the onus is on someone else to prove you wrong. That’s how logic and debate works.

[Armchair]

Nelson,

Evidence was linked previously. Others have asserted the opposite.
They cannot back up their claims.

[Nelson]

https://www.novartis.com/ca-en/news/media-releases/health-canada-approves-pluvictotm-first-targeted-radioligand-therapy-progressive-psma-positive-metastatic-castration-resistant-prostate-cancer

Canada approved the drug at the sane tine the US did.

You are wrong when you claim they didn’t approve it until 2025.

Flat wrong. Absolutely wrong. Without a doubt wrong. Completely, unequivocally, and categorically wrong.

Would you like to quadruple down on being wrong by claiming, again, that it wasn’t approved until 2025?

[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.

[Joe_dallas]

Absarko - that was my mistake for omitting the benefits of childhood vaccines life expentancy.

fwiw - your examples all point to why the US health care system remains at or near the top. (albeit at a high cost).

Your knee comment likewise is spot on showing why the US health care system is tops. I have had 4 knee surgeries , 2 acls, 2 meniscus all due to being cursed with a 34' vertical playing sports. I then continued to play indoor soccer until age 66 (with the 20-30 year olds) .

Back to the primary point is that relying on "life expectancy" as a measurement of the quality of health care is a meaningless metric for reason as I previously stated. Those individuals that use that metric do so because they dont understand the data.

[not guilty]

"I have had 4 knee surgeries , 2 acls, 2 meniscus all due to being cursed with a 34' vertical playing sports."

WTF? A 34 foot vertical would approximate the height of a three story house.

[Absaroka]

As I quoted, I'm talking about "Genetics and behavior play a vastly greater role in life expectancy than health care". That seems unlikely to me.

"fwiw - your examples all point to why the US health care system remains at or near the top. (albeit at a high cost)."

How so? Most antibiotics and blood pressure meds are pretty cheap. I've paid like $5 (unsubsidized, cash on the barrelhead) for a course of generic amoxicillin.

The knee surgeries were ??$15k?? each. They enhanced our mobility a lot more than spending $15k on a car.

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Nelson]

“ But in Canada, it took till 2025 until public health care approved it for use.”

You are intentionally, illogically, and incorrectly claiming that approval for use (which I believe was shown above to have happened in 2022) and approval for coverage by the public health system are the same thing. They aren’t.

In America, different health insurances (and companies) cover different drugs. If you are changing plans, you literally have to make sure your new company and plan cover your drugs. It’s the same in Canada.

You claim it wasn’t approved for use before 2025. Prove it. Because if you can’t even establish your premise as valid, you have no argument.

[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

[JohnSmith97]

So now you are denying that the well known "east asian" molestation/rape groups exist in the UK?

Anything to fluff up the left, eh?

[Martinned]

1. Yes
2. How are you getting that from what Musk said?

[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.

[Martinned]

Fair enough. It still makes me wonder which "peace treaty" you hallucinated, but sure.

[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."

[Life of Brian]

The royal I? The FBI director has been required to use governmental aircraft for all travel, including personal, since 2011.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-235.pdf

[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.

[Martinned]

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with you grovelling and bowing before your own leaders?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — I had occasion when Cecil Andrus—formerly governor of Idaho—was U.S. Secretary of the Interior, to interview him. I took advantage to satisfy my curiosity about why even during tenure in the U.S. Cabinet, Andrus went by the title, "Governor." He replied that the custom in American political protocol was to continue to call an official by the highest title he/she had ever been elected to.

I had not known that. After consideration, I thought it a nice distinction. It implies that a title earned by elected office is honorific, and that appointed titles are more utilitarian.

This is not disagreement with your main point, about too-lavish displays of deference to office holders. There is too much of that.

[Martinned]

Interesting.

I was thinking whether the Dutch prime minister ever gets called by his job title. The only situation I could think of where that happens is debates in parliament, which involve highly artificial language anyway. Technically, in that situation the speaker isn't addressing the prime minister directly. ("Chairman, does the Prime Minister agree that X is an outrage?")

With normal members of parliament I don't even know which word I would use if I wanted to call them by the office they were elected to. In the UK and in Germany they get some letters behind their names, in the Netherlands we don't even have that. I think in the UK you sometimes hear people call an MP "MP" when addressing them, but I don't think it's very common. In Germany I wouldn't know how to do that either. If you were talking to them you'd just call them Mr. A or Mrs. B.

[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.

[Martinned]

That's fine. I can't make you.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you live in an f-ing monarchy. Somehow I don't think your "Our people would never put up with people demanding special treatment" is very convincing.

[Martinned]

...which is why that's not what I said. I said that people wouldn't put up with *politicians* behaving that way.

(Incidentally, most European monarchs also get surrounded by less bowing and curtsying than the American president, but clearly the whole point of a monarchy is that the King is the exception to all the rules, so let's leave that discussion for another day.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"...so let's leave that discussion for another day.)"
A day that will never come.

[Martinned]

Feel free to have it now. We can start by asking which European monarch, if any, shits on a gold toilet the way Trump does.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this, because...?
I thought you were an economist, not a plumber.

[David Nieporent]

Trump shits in a gold toilet; he shits on entire countries, including this one.

[JohnSmith97]

In the US you are allowed to say what you like about politicians - unlike, say, your country.

[Martinned]

1. That's bullshit. In the US you get deported for criticising the Great Leader. Here in Europe, we have free speech.

2. What does that have to do with what I said? Is there a reason you felt the need to move the goalposts that far?

[Mr. Bumble]

"That's bullshit..."
The only bullshit is your comment..
Just who is being deported for criticizing Trump and who is this "we" you speak of?

[Martinned]

This isn't the sort of article anyone needs to write in Europe (other than Russia and Belarus, obviously).

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/writing-an-op-ed-is-not-grounds-for-deportation

[Mr. Bumble]

The linked article lists ONE example (who I believed was released from custody and is still here.

[Martinned]

If you're going to try to gaslight me, here's an entire Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_deportations_in_the_second_Trump_presidency

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly gaslighting to follow your original link and comment based on that.

[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.")

[Jmaie]

Heh - I recently asked a TSA official whether it was jackets on or off today and he got all bent out of shape. Yelled that they are always consistent about their requirements. I would’ve mentioned that I had gotten opposite instructions within the last week through the same airport and checkpoint, but I wanted to make my flight…

[Absaroka]

"Yelled that they are always consistent about their requirements."

Heh.

[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.

[JohnSmith97]

We do know how elected (D) leadership feels about the shutdown - and plenty of them are on video.

Of course, any video that might show an elected (D) leader in a bad light will now be declared an "AI hoax".

"Fucking with SNAP" just imagine if your elected (D) leadership would vote yes on the same bill they voted yes on a few months ago - there would be no issues with SNAP. Or with anything else funded with that CR.

But elected (D) leadership feels that they have "leverage".

In any event, at least for this shutdown - at least I know the answer to "Does Sarc ever work?" the answer went from probably not to no.

[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.

[David Nieporent]

That you were fooled by the performance doesn't make them non-performative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They aren't trying to negotiate..."

Why should they negotiate?

[David Nieporent]

To end the shutdown.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why shouldn't I just blame the guys who are voting against ending the shutdown?

[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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — I had the impression you have been working up a pose as an even-handed critic of bad government, without partisan bias. Are you ready now to say forthrightly that it has been right wing partisanship all along?

[Martinned]

It's politics, everybody demands something. If the Democrats demand X, and there is disagreement, that logically implies that the Republicans demand "not X".

Compromise or nuke the filibuster. These blame games are pathetic.

[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.

[Martinned]

So your view is that it's OK for the government to let Americans starve? I know it's not a unique view among the Trumpist right, but it's still pretty startling to see.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maga-congressman-tells-snap-recipients-103719219.html

[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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hypothetically, if being able bodied no longer signified realistic capacity to earn a living, would you get it then? I ask because I expect a trend in that direction.

I do not expect AI to work miracles, but I do expect it to be initially-over-adopted and over-praised. One reason that would happen is that an AI employee does not obligate an employer to make payments into government safety net programs. Thus, even an AI less efficient than a human employee it replaces could advantage the employer more.

It will not be surprising if that trend gets out of hand pretty suddenly, creating simultaneous breakdowns in productivity, job markets, and social safety nets. Nobody seem to be giving policy planning consideration to that. Optimistic policy planning about AI gets most of the social encouragement.

[Martinned]

Even if AI is revolutionary, the labour market will respond. That's what it did every other time something revolutionary was invented. Demand and supply is a wonderful thing.

[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.

[wvattorney13]

" It's a useful token..." It isn't. "that aids commerce." It doesn't.

[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.

[wvattorney13]

Prices could be set to the nearest nickel. It you are talking about a payment as a result of a mathematical calculation then payments in cash will always be rounded to the smallest coin in circulation. We see it currently with gasoline. We don't have mill coins.

[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.)

[Jmaie]

I liked the SNL fake debate, where they asked the candidates why they should be elected. Cuomo said,” As soon as you’re elected mayor, everyone hates you. I’m already a step ahead of these other guys.”

[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.

[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.

[Don Nico]

"almost certain Trump "
That is your ispe dixit. Trump was doubtless briefed (POTUS gets a daily intelligence brief) on exactly what Russia tested. Flying for 40 minutes at 500 knots, Burevestnik's reactor was a radiological disaster waiting to happen.
However we do know that Trump does like to fly off the handle, and he has been pissed at Putin. So he made a remark that easily could have been interpreted as meaning that the US would resume nuclear detonations.

[David Nieporent]

POTUS gets a daily intelligence brief)

They had to pare that down because Trump has the attention span of a toddler on cocaine.

[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.

[Don Nico]

You may be correct that he was trying to praise Sec. Wright. The insult is that Wright is no mere handler, press secretary, communications director or Steven Miller.

[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.

[Don Nico]

Wight was not announcing Trumps order. He was saying what the US is planning and has been doing. Trump has doubtless been briefed on that as it is the highest priority in the nuclear weapons program.

[David Nieporent]

"Doubtless"!

[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.

[Don Nico]

Stephen, my focus has not changed a bit.
1) I am deeply concerned that there are NO efforts being made to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the US or Russia, and that China is rapidly increasing its arsenal.
2) The original nuclear weapons states all have a large fraction of their arsenals requiring renovation/replacement to assure their reliability, credibility, and safety. That active does not require nuclear test detonations.
3) My focus has not changed at all. The maintenance and replacement of old devices almost always requires minor modifications of the device (or its design). Those modifications are always tested at the component level and do not require a nuclear detonation. Similarly if a new high explosive formulation is used in the refurbishment.
The directors of all three US nuclear weapons labs have certified to Congress and the President every year since 1994 that NO nuclear test detonations are necessary for the US to maintain strategic parity with any potential adversary.

[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

[Don Nico]

You are worthless. Who never says anything worthwhile let alone something that contradicts what I say.

[grb]

You just can't help lying, can you? Trump's angry, self-important, and high-drama announcement was NOT someone restating an ongoing policy that has run continuously for almost forty years. According to you, Trump must know about the testing methods used by the U.S, China, and Russia. He'd be a brainless idiot otherwise. Of course that really doesn't help your case, does it?

And your problems just get worse & worse: When Trump then says he ordered DOD to resume tests immediately “on an equal basis” with U.S. rivals, he was (per you) ordering them to do something they've done regularly for decades as a reaction to something the Russians & Chinese have been doing regularly for decades. You might want to take a sec and consider how buffoonish that sounds to anyone outside the Cult.

I'm going link Trump's message one more time below. Let's have everyone see how pathetic your bullshit is.

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

[grb]

Don Nico : "You are worthless."

Whatever. But here's the thing : You're the one who just humiliated yourself on this topic by endless weaseling in every directions. From CBS News :

"In an interview on "60 Minutes," the president elaborated on remarks he made last week announcing a plan to resume U.S. testing of nuclear weapons. "Other countries are testing," he said. "We're the only country that doesn't test, and I don't want to be the only country that doesn't test."

The president did not clarify what type of testing he envisions. The U.S. has not conducted above-ground nuclear tests since the 1960s, and the last underground detonation of a nuclear device in the U.S. occurred in 1992. That test, at the Nevada Test Site, was the final nuclear weapons test before the current testing moratorium was put in place. Asked if he was announcing that after more than 30 years, the United States planned to start detonating nuclear weapons for testing, Mr. Trump replied that "we're going to test nuclear weapons like other countries do, yes."

"Russia's testing, and China's testing, but they don't talk about it," he said.

See, that's the problem you face, Don Nico. Being bootlicker to a clown, you're always having your flailing efforts undercut by yet more ignorance from your orange-tinted god. That's the case here in spades. You frantically defended Trump against the charge of new explosive tests when you thought that your Master's bidding. Then you switched a full one-eighty to insisted he'd never propose new tests when you thought that a possible spin. Only to have Trump make you look like a fool on live TV!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-plans-to-restart-nuclear-testing-experts/

[Sarcastr0]

One wonders if Don Nico thinks a bunch of people who he used disagree agreeably with suddenly all became angry leftists at about the same time, or if he realizes he's the common factor here.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, I for one can vouch that nothing "suddenly" happened at all -- particularly with grb. Very much like C_XY, y'all just wore down Don Nico over the years with your persistent poor-faith shtick.

[grb]

Life of Brian : "poor-faith shtick"

Well, yeah. That describes Don Nico to the nth degree here. Since you're also known for being fact-challenged, here's a reminder: Yesterday, Nico gave us this:

"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."

Poor Nico didn't realize Trump already made that precise claim the previous night. This statement was on tape and in the can for everyone to see (link above). Seems like the "rotted brain" theory is looking spot-on after all.

Now if this an honest mistake or single miscue on one topic, it might be easy to be generous. But Nico has been wildly spinning like a top on this issue, spewing contradictory excuses on successive days to justify whatever White House babble is current.

Nico on Friday : Trump wants new explosive tests, but that's justified because of (lame incoherent argument).

Nico on Monday : Trump doesn't want new explosive tests, he was just referring to the standard practice for decades. (lame attempt to ignore what Trump actually said).

Nico on Monday (full rage-mode) : Trump doesn't believe Russia and China are doing explosive testing and anyone who suggests otherwise is a (insult, insult, insult).

God alone knows what Nico will claim now! Whatever his Cult bootlicking duties require, to be sure - but who knows what bizarre form that will take.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"or if he realizes he's the common factor here."

Lol you post the same bullshit to everyone you disagree with.

[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?

[Absaroka]

FWIW, building the basketball court meant painting lines and adding baskets to the existing tennis court. The second tennis court, not the one built in 1910, where "(Coolidge's son) died of blood poisoning at age 16 after getting a blister as he played without socks on the court in June 1924" in that pre-antibiotic age. Gerald Ford built an outdoor pool on that site[1], relocating the tennis court to the current location. Trump 1.0 added a pavilion.

[1]to replace FDR's indoor pool

[grb]

I think Joe_dallas has a fantasy image of some hardwood arena court. He's definitely not dealing with the real facts here.

Of course, when did Joe_dallas ever deal with real facts? I've never seen him do so.

[grb]

Obama's "basketball court" was a hoop and some marking added to the corner of an existing tennis court. I can absolutely guarantee it was many times less expensive that the cost of marble alone for Trump's Gatsby-style toilet - leaving aside the gold-plated fixtures and overall renovation costs. And given I've heard this "infamous" basketball court given as justification for Trump's banquet hall Bling Palace, a whole other world of whiny rightwing perpetual victimhood pushes this miniscule little addition to even more wacko level.

In the end, Obama's "basketball court" is roughly the project-scope extent as a suburban pops putting up a hoop for the kids. Granted, it's probably a top-notch pole & basket, so I guess that means a slightly-above microscopic cost vs just a microscopic cost.

But let's be clear, Joe_dallas, your whiny attempt to use it as a "what-about" is hilariously absurd.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, what happened was that there were White House repairs undertaken under Obama, costing about $376 million. MAGA whatabouted this to defend Trump's ballroom project. But few of them can read and none of the ones who can, actually care about the truth. So they

1) turned $376 million in upgrades to decades-old HVAC, electrical, and security systems, plus a few thousand dollars for a basketball court, into a $376 million basketball court;
2) turned a renovation project approved while Bush was president into an Obama project; and
3) ignored the fact that Congress expressly approved this, rather than Bush or Obama just unilaterally deciding to do it.

[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.

[Krayt]

Constitution got changed as people changed their minds? I thought that was a good thing.

[not guilty]

The hundreds of thousands of casualties which precipitated adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was not a good thing. The United States is a better nation with that amendment, but it came at a horrific cost.

[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.

[JohnSmith97]

those penumbras and emanations just won't find themselves, right?

[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.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
As a lawyer, you know that every pancake, no matter how thin, has two sides.
Likewise this stories has two sides, both of which have strong conflicts of interest that shape their narratives. I don't have enough inside knowledge to discern the more accurate of the narratives.
If you or others are interested in hearing the other side, you can hear a long explanation by Gady Taub:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywksutgF8to&t=2133s

[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.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

Has it? He’s still one of the most popular political figures in the country and Republicans still can’t undo his signature domestic achievement despite promising it for 15 years.

[Sarcastr0]

BL hates Obama. He called him "impressive like Joe Stalin is impressive."

He's as MAGA as everyone else, he's just calmer about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and as always you're Il Douche.

[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?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Insurrection Act and mass arrests.

[Estragon]

That is some serious RINO talk. Sad!

[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

[shawn_dude]

People can be put in jail when they commit a crime. Explain how one places a corporation in jail.

[not guilty]

Corporations can be fined.

[David Nieporent]

Or given the metaphorical death penalty.

[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.

[SRG2]

A variety of people
Predominantly Americans and American firms as you well know.
Typically. Even you can't say "always". Sometimes they don't.

I can't say it because I'm honest. But it does mean that it's the norm, to be expected, etc. which you concede.

Start with the Tariff law of 1934,

Nope. Reciprocal tariffs only, and limited in amount. Nor IEEPA, which doesn't mention tariffs at all - though there might be a grimly amusing spectacle of some of the SC justices explaining why the MQD applies to Biden but not to Trump. Try another law.

Under what law was Trump empowered to raise taxes on Canada because of an Ontario government video? Other than Fuihrer macht rechts, of course.

[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.

[Armchair]

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

You're mixing and matching the emergencies and the effects here. Then using arbitrary measures. Is Ethiopia actually an emergency? Is Fentanyl actually an emergency? The arbitrary measure actually creates major difficulties.

Let's use the speeding analogy. That is actually quantified. Different levels of speeding get different fines. It's written into the law. 30 MPH over is actually written up as a separate crime (Reckless driving) that can be charged criminally. It's not just "speeding is illegal"

If you want to actually control what you view as abuse, you need new laws that definitively assign quantifiable limits. You can't rely on the old arbitrary "well, this is bad, but this isn't so bad". That just leads to people with different views reinterpreting.

[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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: You missed the part about hauling every day versus once a week,
When the price drops, production drops. Traps hauled less often, people go on vacation.

2: It depends what the tariff is a percentage of, and I had the boat price the FOB Calais price -- what they cost to be brought across the border. There's no tariff on anything beyond that.

3: I did make a mistake, it would be $2.50 not $3.

[shawn_dude]

"They are a tax on imported goods. The importing organization pays the taxes. "

Pedantry. "Importing organizations" are people in the US. We tend to call them "Americans." Even if your vague "importing organization" is absorbing the tax, it's doing so by reducing profits to its shareholders/owners. (Who are likely also Americans.) Using vague terms to represent groups of American people and then implying that it's just this amorphous thing that's getting taxed and not Americans is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.

[David Nieporent]

Of course it's bad faith. If Democrats proposed any tax, ever, on any transaction, for any reason, these MAGA people would sneer at the promise that only unspecified other people, not ordinary consumers, were paying the tax.

[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?

[SRG2]

You fuckwit.

Hey everyone, Dr Ed believes that East Germany was a democracy and North Korea still is.

[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?

[shawn_dude]

"Your honor, my client is allergic to peanuts and that could have been a PB and J!"

[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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The retired UMass librarian told me that the FBI wanted this in the 70s.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why are library records held tighter than gun owner records?"

Because library records are retained by people who like the 1st amendment, and gun owner records by people who dislike the 2nd.

The very existence of gun owner records was a product of hostility to gun ownership, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

SO OPPRESSED.

[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.

[Brett Bellmore]

I vaguely recall a court case out in California where it was ruled that the state so reliably leaked personal information about disfavored groups that it's assurances that it wouldn't were legally worthless.

[Sarcastr0]

One court, at one point, made a finding that aligned with your political thriller view of leftist villains embedded everywhere.

And so of course you will take it as gospel truth.

[shawn_dude]

From a pure data perspective, I have a visceral reaction to the DOB in combination with other items on that list. Having said that, I don't see much of an issue with releasing some of that information. In California's case, I'd look at drivers license information and what can be legally pulled and then compare it to the list above. In that case, the list would be:
Application date
Current license status
Zip code
Sex

That's enough information to generalize CC licenses without identifying individuals. I'd also omit data from any collection where there are so few members that identities could be easily guessed.

wrt libraries... similar data for people with library cards but not for material read just like with drivers licenses you cannot get driving records.

[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.

[Keldonric]

I am a little late because I didn’t read the thread yesterday. Good link. The Just Security summary lays out the competing arguments well, particularly on the threshold question of whether IEEPA was properly triggered in the first place.

This is the area I’ve been examining: whether the President’s use of IEEPA tries to draw authority from Clause 1 (duties for revenue) or Clause 3 (commerce regulation). Madison made the same distinction in his 1829 letter to Joseph C. Cabell, explaining that Congress’s encouragement of manufactures was achieved “by regulations diminishing and even preventing revenue as well as producing it.” In other words as I understand it, duties for regulation could deliberately reduce revenue and were therefore distinct in purpose from duties laid for revenue. (Madison to Cabell, Feb. 13 1829, Founders Online, National Archives.)

That distinction shows up in Yoshida: Nixon’s 1971 surcharge addressed a balance-of-payments crisis, but Congress codified that issue in § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132), giving the President limited surcharge power under Title 19 — Customs Duties — not Title 50 — War and National Defense. By 1975 the court was interpreting a wartime statute after Congress had already moved the policy into ordinary trade law.

IEEPA (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 – 1707), unlike § 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862), § 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411), or § 122 (19 U.S.C. § 2132), has no mechanism to collect or deposit duties — it regulates flows but can’t raise revenue. Every trade statute routes collections through 19 U.S.C. § 1505; IEEPA doesn’t.

Title 19 handles customs revenue; Title 50 handles emergencies and defense. There is no statutory link between the two. If there were something in Title 19 akin to the balance-of-payments authority in 19 U.S.C. § 2132, it would be a different story.

And while the arguments made in court are what count, the administration’s own rhetoric hasn’t helped its case. The President said, “We’re making a fortune with tariffs — two billion dollars a day.” That framing makes the tariffs sound like revenue measures, not regulatory ones. If the goal were regulation, the revenue should be incidental, not celebrated as the point.

[Commenter_XY]

The link was helpful, loki13. Just like the Trump NYC case where you posted a link that helpfully described the legal case.

[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.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

1. So, on experience, you change the guidelines.

No corporation? There are lots of corporations. They choose people for a variety of reasons. The person can have a variety of uses, even if their experience is somewhat limited.

If they had to pick from three people, they also would have problems with a Cuomo and Sliwa for a variety of reasons.

2. The city has long had rent control. Testing out city groceries on a small scale, which is his proposal, is simply not a big deal. Then there are qualifiers like "largely" that don't work. And, hyperbole like "destroy a city," especially given his limited power to do things.

3. Did 40% or so of the Jews support the Nazis? The whole thing is ridiculous hyperbole and scaremongering.

[shawn_dude]

"This is not a legislative/represenative type role. It is an executive position."

He's an elected, political leader in the same sense of any other political executive like the US President. Corporate executive experience is, by its nature authoritarian, which is the wrong sort of experience for a political role. He's been in the NY state assembly since 2020 and has some experience related to housing--an important part of his agenda.

I'd say he's about as qualified as most sitting politicians who run for higher political office.

[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."

[Sarcastr0]

I made a prediction.

You seem scandalized.

You're enthusiasm to find something to attack has made you silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've just confirmed his observation: You're not prepared to defend his positions, you just want to preemptively attack anybody objecting to them.

[Sarcastr0]

You've made up positions you've decided he has. I've pointed you to his platform, and you call it lies.

You're too stuck in redbait land, why should I bother engaging with your obsessive delusions?

[JohnSmith97]

So now the crap he has posted over the years is "made up positions"?

I'm surprised that you didn't go straight to it is all an AI hoax.

Anything to avoid disagreeing with a (D).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm really not familiar with the details of Mamdani's positions, but I can't help but notice that Sarcastr0 doesn't want to defend those positions on the merits.

Just for laughs, let me look up some details, to see what it is Sarcastro doesn't want to defend.

The BBC says Mamdani "has promised universal childcare, freezing rent in subsidised units, free public buses and city-run grocery stores."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rjjdvx5r5o

Perhaps rent control and city-run grocery stores are a bridge too far for Sarcastro?

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0 doesn't stand for anything but general niceties. He stands against everything Republican.

As for "bridges too far," he denies their existence until they're in effect, and then moves onto denial of the next bridge too far.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we're not just talking about the subset of Mamdani's positions which he considers it safe to discuss while running for office, but instead the totality of them.

Sarcastr0's usual response when they're brought up is something like, "But that was two years ago!" Or, "Repeating terrorist slogans doesn't mean you support terrorists!"

[Sarcastr0]

Your insights into his secret positions based on some scattered quotes from the past decade are not actually real life.

[Brett Bellmore]

How the hell is a position he openly states in a recorded conference 'secret'?

"Secret" and "doesn't talk about while campaigning for office" are hardly the same thing.

And I suppose two years ago IS 'from the past decade', but it's still a stupid way to frame it.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "[Republicans have] spent a lot [of] their bullshit time nationalizing him"

Since when are Barack Obama and Hakeem Jeffries Republicans?

You're nothing but baseless attacks and non-existent defenses.

[Sarcastr0]

To reiterate: Republicans have spent a lot of their bullshit time nationalizing him.

The fact that Dems have had varying opinions doesn't change what the Republicans have spent a lot of their bullshit time on.

What thesis are you even defending, with these accusations? That the Republicans *haven't* spent time and effort nationalizing him?

This was not a great showing. Maybe go back and try again.

[Sarcastr0]

Republicans are posting pics of 9-11 or just tying it to
this election.

They’re concerns are just bigotry.

[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

[Life of Brian]

60 Minutes edited out a segment where Donald Trump tells them to edit out a segment

Actual language, quoted in full in your linked article: "And you don’t have to put this on, because I don’t wanna embarrass you . . ."

Maybe your brain would hurt a bit less if you didn't spend so much time and energy making up things to be outraged over. Just a thought!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm hearing the password to the louvre surveillance server was "louvre"

No good sources yet, but harmless to share.

[ThePublius]

I have no trouble believing that. I worked in IT and product security. We would do tests, sending emails with pretty obvious phishing clues, and about 40% of the workforce would fall for it. Corporate execs and their admins were disproportionately represented. We'd attempt to break into accounts, usually using dictionary attacks. Same thing. Once found an entire corporate strategy group with password=username.

[Brett Bellmore]

At my previous employer, passwords had been individually administered. Finally someone in management realized this could be a problem, and required employees to report their passwords to HR.

The next week HR sent out an email saying keeping track of them was too much trouble, and directing everybody to reset their passwords to 123...

It was widely ignored.

Of course, this was long enough ago that basically only tech savvy people were actually using computers...

[Kenneth Almquist]

“report their passwords to HR”
Wow, that’s crazy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

123? That's the same combination I have on my luggage!

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/mysafespace/

Ghostbusters (2016).

These are people who have been super mad about the dumbest things for the longest time.

[Life of Brian]

The entire page is absolutely hilarious. Maybe lighten up a hair.

[Estragon]

“hilarious”

Of course you find it hilarious little buddy— you’re 12 years old, after all.

“Lighten up”

Humor tips from the people who were rolling in the aisles at the idea of Paul Pelosi getting his skull fractured are always so enlightening. Joe has it right— it’s government by troll. Not so long ago such things would be unthinkable. Ah, the norms, they be changing. Trump has truly released the preadolescent id in all of you people.

[Life of Brian]

Vance dressed as the "fat JD" meme for Halloween.

Charlie Kirk loved South Park's roast of him as a "master debater."

Thin-skinned lefties moan and wail about "muh normz."

The contrast is stark.

[LawTalkingGuy]

South Park and random memes are NOT the equivalent of official government websites tuning into trolling venues or elected officials mocking violent attacks on their political opponents.

[Estragon]

Excellent examples. When I say this is government by troll, you provide examples of trollish humor by others as some sort of excuse or rhetorical rejoinder. You are validating the comparison by making it yourself. You have proven my point better than I ever could.

[Life of Brian]

Actually, my examples were of people comfortable enough with themselves to be able to laugh at themselves rather than whining about it. Political satire has been a bedrock of our society for far longer than you and i have been alive -- you're just trying to conjure up some sort of phony rule about who may and may not engage in it because you don't like this particular example.

[On a side note, it's a bit surreal that I'm being instructed about the finer points of norms and trolling by someone who "protests" by taking a public bike ride in his birthday suit.]

[David Nieporent]

Yes, the people trying to get Jimmy Kimmel canceled were obviously able to laugh at themselves rather than whining.

[LawTalkingGuy]

We’re at a point where GOP US senators are trying to get teachers fired because think that Halloween costumes that involve blood are obviously making fun of Charlie Kirk. Far from being able to laugh at themselves they’ve become convinced that normal and unrelated things are designed to deliberately antagonize them.

[David Nieporent]

Well… I didn't cite that one because it wasn't an issue of not laughing at oneself. It was an example of being insane (no rational person would have looked at the photo and said, "This is about Kirk"), but if the shirts were about Kirk, those shirts would've been in incredibly poor taste and nobody, no matter how much of a sense of humor he had, should reasonably have been expected to laugh about it.

Kimmel, on the other hand, was not making fun of Kirk or making light of his death; he was commenting on MAGA behavior.

[Estragon]

Still no denial that we are laboring under government by troll. I can only surmise you view this as a positive state of affairs— which is not surprising coming from a 12 year old.

David covers one part of this sort of sad response.

Using humor and surrealism to point out the absurdity inherent in authoritarians actually has a long and colorful history that well predates the formation of this country.

As for norms, I think the point is rather obvious no matter how studiously you attempt to avoid it. You people are spending taxpayer dollars and the people’s time to put out this partisan “comedy” routine. I poop on your protests! Not so long ago, such things would be unthinkable. Now, it’s “hilarious” because, well, of course it is— you’re 12 little dude!

Comfortable enough to laugh at themselves— now that’s a funny joke.

“Seth Meyers of NBC may be the least talented person to “perform” live in the history of television. In fact, he may be the WORST to perform, live or otherwise. I watched his show the other night for the first time in years. In it he talked endlessly about electric catapults on aircraft carriers which I complain about as not being as good as much less expensive steam catapults. On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!”

[Life of Brian]

To the two-peas-in-a-pod responses (setting aside the juvenile chatter from the nekked bike protestor/protest pooper):

I'm not really sure it takes much of a nuance-capable brain at all to appreciating the distinction between "in the unlikely event that was actually intended to be comedy, it didn't land at all" and "well, ok, that one actually was funny (H/T SRG2 below), but you shouldn't have said it 'cuz muh normz."

[Estragon]

“nekked bike protestor”

That you keep going back to this— as if nude protest and my imagined participation in it is some sort of rhetorical coup de gras obviating any substantive response— is trademark 12 year old logic. Res ipsa.

It is true that such a thing would have been unthinkable— scandalously so— not so long ago. It is also true we are experiencing government by troll and that legions of arrested-development ostensible adults are thrilled by it or rush to excuse it; demonstrating for the bazillionth time the true philosophical lodestar of the Trumpist movement: owning the libs.

But why waste more time belaboring this with you? I should just quote not one, but two, Trump spokespeople and speak to you in language you might understand:

“YOUR MOM!!!!”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay but being in a government position is a serious position that has serious responsibilities to people in the country. It follows then that it is not appropriate for elected officials and government websites to troll their own citizens. It has nothing to do with the ability to laugh at oneself.

You’re probably not reading this but years ago you blocked me on the theory I believe on the theory I was immature or something. But here you are defending the most juvenile behavior from your own government for the most juvenile reasons. Don’t you think that requires some introspection on your part?

[SRG2]

It is hilarious and utterly inappropriate. Both can be true at the same time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We are governed by trolls. Some people find this amusing, especially when the trolling is against people they don't like.

That is simply not something that should be on an official White House website. It's childish and worse even elsewhere.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Every few years, an online comment or tweet offers a compelling analytic paradigm that succinctly characterizes contemporary politics. “Everyone is 12 Now” theory is perhaps the most powerful one we’ve seen, because it also offers good insight into contemporary social and cultural issues.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Beavis and Butthead episodes now have adult segments of the boys as adults. They might find some Trump supporters immature.

[Estragon]

It’s unbelievable. I can’t unsee it.

[SRG2]

Immature and undignified - so perfectly representative of the Trump approach and hence so approved of by his supporters. But remember, Obama wore a tan suit.,

[Bunny495]

Proof the dems are responsible for the shutdown.

The legal basis for modern government shutdowns was established in 1980 when then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued opinions that strict interpretation of the Antideficiency Act meant agencies could not operate without an appropriation.

Before this dem AG's opinion government agencies simply kept doing what they usually do since the expectation was there would be funding soon. As the saying goes 'never let a crisis go to waste'.

[OpinionsVary]

So there's some ongoing argument about whether Lindsey Halligan was validly appointed a interim US Attorney for EDVA. This is forming part of the arguments in the Comey prosecution.

In an attempt to prevent that argument, Pam Bondi has appointed Halligan as a Special Attorney either for all of EDVA or (if the Judge says nope to that) just the Comey and James prosecutions.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.137.1.pdf

BUT, and this is the interesting bit, she claims not to just have appointed Halligan to that role but to do so retroactively - so Halligan was appointed both interim USA and Special Attorney since September 22, 2025 and always has been.

Does anyone know - can an appointment be made retroactively like this in an attempt to save what would otherwise have been an unlawful prosecution? Or does appointment authority effect follow the laws of time?

[Keldonric]

Did a search on this and found the following. A back-dated appointment doesn’t fix anything. The prosecutions would need to be re-initiated by a properly appointed U.S. Attorney or Special Attorney under fresh authority. Ryder and Lucia seem to apply.

[loki13]

Yeah, I agree with Keldronic. You can't nunc pro tunc this one.

Look, I am not saying that there isn't some jurist, somewhere, that might buy this argument- stranger things have happened. But I'd argue that for 95+% of judges that saw something like this?

It weakens the case (which was already terrible), because it is a flashing sign that they know they effed up.

Not to mention it happened after the SOL, which further means that they are SOL.

[loki13]

I would add in addition to all the many other issues, the one that really matters (and why, I assume, the presiding judge asked for the grand jury transcript proceedings sua sponte in the Halligan cases) ... is because Halligan was the only attorney in the room (unlike other unlawful appointment cases) and it's black-letter law that if you aren't authorized to conduct the proceeding, you can't do it.

That's also something you can't retroactively bless.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I didn’t make it through the government’s entire argument, but I did look up Kelley (link below) which the government summarizes as:

Where the only government attorney to present evidence to the grand jury and sign the indictment was suspended from the practice of law, a court held that “the indictment was valid” because other government lawyers “agreed with the grand jury that the indictment should issue,” as evidenced by their signatures on later filings.

The argument that the grand jury wasn’t interacting with a valid U.S. attorney was deemed waived, so Kelly has nothing to say about that. What was at issue in Kelly was that the only attorney to sign the indictment wasn’t allowed to represent the government. In Kelley, the district court found that the indictment and the prosecution memorandum were approved by the signing attorney’s superiors prior to being presented to the grand jury. The signatures on the subsequent plea deal are evidence in support of that finding.

Kelly was filed sixteen years after the indictment, and testimony from the attorney who originally prosecuted the case was not available. Here that attorneys who filed the response are saying in effect, “See our signatures on this brief? That’s proof that we are involved in the case. You should therefore assume that we reviewed and approved the indictment before it was presented to the grand jury.” Ridiculous. If they had approved the indictment, they would have provided an affidavit saying so.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/19-1932P-01A.pdf

[not guilty]

Statues of war heroes often portray Thank you for the link. I find especially interesting the following language:

On September 22, 2025, I exercised the authority vested in the Attorney General by 28 U.S.C. § 546 to designate and appoint Lindsey Halligan as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. See Att'y Gen. Order No. 6402-2025. For the avoidance of doubt as to the validity of that appointment, and by virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, and 515, I hereby appoint Ms. Halligan to the additional position of Special Attorney, as of September 22, 2025, and thereby ratify her employment as an attorney of the Department of Justice from that date going forward. As Special Attorney, Ms. Halligan has authority to conduct, in the Eastern District of Virginia, any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before United States Magistrates and Judges. In the alternative, should a court conclude that Ms. Halligan's authority as Special Attorney is limited to particular matters, I hereby delegate to Ms. Halligan authority as Special Attorney to conduct and supervise the prosecutions in United States v. Comey (Case No. 1:25-CR-00272) and United States v. James (Case No. 2:25-CR-00122)

That is quite an interesting take on 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515 -- especially in light of the position that the current Deputy Attorney General took while representing one of the defendants in United States v. Trump, No. 23-80101-CR (S.D. Fla.), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.326.0.pdf

[not guilty]

The language in the preceding comment, "Statues of war heroes often portray", was from a comment on an unrelated topic which I began and then abandoned. Its inclusion here was inadvertent, so please disregard it as surplusage.

[Martinned]

In last week's Dutch election there was an interesting pilot with a polling station in a prison.

The background is that prisoner voting is a whole thing, but theoretically not in the Netherlands. 20 years ago, in a case called Hirst (No. 2) v. United Kingdom, the European Court for Human Rights held that countries are not allowed to categorically refuse prisoners the right to vote. This led to an enormous row, with the Brits basically refusing to comply with the judgment. Ultimately the British only made cosmetic changes to their laws, and the Court (and the Council of Europe) pretended that that constituted compliance.

In the Netherlands this has never been an issue. Because we don't have electoral districts, there is no practical issue with prisoners voting. Their votes just go into the national count, together with everyone else's. And the legal rule has always been that taking away someone's right to vote is a subsidiary punishment that has to be imposed by the court in cases where the law allows it, which is typically in cases with some kind of seditious aspect, like treason and terrorism.

But in practice voting is still a problem for Dutch prisoners, because they don't have access to a polling station. And because there is no general right to vote by mail in the Netherlands (only if you live abroad), the only way prisoners can vote is by proxy. And that's inconvenient paperwork, even if you have someone who is willing to be your proxy. And so virtually no prisoner ever votes.

This time there was a polling station in the women's prison Ter Peel, which was available to both prisoners and residents of the area (but not at the same time, obviously). About 40 prisoners voted, out of a total of 135 votes cast at that polling station. So we don't know how the prisoners voted, but we do know that no one there voted for Ingrid Coenradie, who was until recently the minister for prisons...

[Mr. Bumble]

"And because there is no general right to vote by mail in the Netherlands (only if you live abroad),..." and ID is required.
Maybe US Dems should pay more attention to our European "betters".

[Martinned]

You've never seen me argue against either a voter ID or a requirement to vote in person as a general matter.

But you normally will see me argue that a voter ID requirement means that voters have to be able to get sufficient ID very easily (as they can in the Netherlands).

Similarly, you will see me argue that a requirement to vote in person means that enough polling stations have to be available. This year I waited for 15 minutes to vote, but that's the longest I've waited in my life, and that's only because I decided to go vote in the parliament building. On my way there I walked by three polling stations with no queue whatsoever.

Here in The Hague there were 269 polling stations which were used by a total of 248,078 voters, for an average of a bit less than 1,000 votes per polling station. Given that it takes maybe a minute or two to vote (including the process for verifying your ID and handing you your ballot), you can see why that's about right.

[Mr. Bumble]

The difficultly in obtaining ID is a strawman (H/T Il Douche).
Even illegal aliens can get drivers licenses (including CDLs).

[Martinned]

Can voters get a driving licence if they can't see? The whole point of this voter ID requirement is that obtaining valid ID has to be sufficiently easy *for all voters*.

And, let's face it, politicians who decide which forms of ID are and are not OK don't always bother denying that they make that choice based on which groups of voters are most likely to vote for their party, which makes me naturally suspicious.

https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602

In the Netherlands this is less of an issue, because everyone has to have ID anyway. Basically the only people who might not have a valid ID are people who don't (regularly) go outside, because they are in (hospice) care or something like that.

https://www.government.nl/topics/identification-documents/compulsory-identification

[Brett Bellmore]

States typically issue ID cards similar to driver's licenses, except that they don't authorize driving. And so are available to those who can't drive, such as the blind.

The voter ID fight here in the US is mostly due to a long standing perception that a large fraction of the Democratic party's voting base is poorly motivated, and even trivial obstacles will discourage them from voting: Having to register, provide ID, show up in person in the right place on a specific day...

So they oppose them all.

[Martinned]

You and I might not agree about what is a "trivial obstacle", and if I hear about things like laws that ban people handing water to voters waiting in line to vote I get all sorts of suspicious, but as a general matter I support a voter ID requirement even where valid ID requires some nonzero but not great effort and expense to get.

(E.g. passports can be pretty expensive. If that was the only permissible form of ID, you would have a barrier to voting for low-income voters. But most countries have an ID card exactly for that reason.)

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW the link provides a list of all of the states and ID requirements.
Currently 14 states require no ID, the remainder require some form of ID including 25 which require a photo ID.
Where photo ID is required you will find that multiple forms are available and provisions have been made to make access to securing them fairly simple and cost free.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

[ducksalad]

Here (TX) a photo ID is "required", but if you really can't get one, you can fill out an affidavit at the polling place, along with almost anything with your name on it - utility bill, voter registration card. A voter registration card is mailed automatically to every voter, for free and without asking.

This isn't an important enough hill for Democrats to die on.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and if I hear about things like laws that ban people handing water to voters waiting in line to vote"

The law actually prohibited giving people in line anything at all. While authorizing poll workers to distribute water.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121

[Martinned]

That doesn't make it better. There shouldn't be a line there at all. The fact that the existence of long queues is so predictable that lawmakers make laws to govern them is very bad. They should be making laws to make sure that there is no queue longer than a few minutes anywhere in the state.

[David Nieporent]

They should be making laws to make sure that there is no queue longer than a few minutes anywhere in the state.

How can a law prevent people from lining up?

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean the line should be shorter than the line for the ladies room at intermission?
Or maybe the line for a crapercino at Starbucks?

[Martinned]

@David: The law can prevent that by requiring there to be sufficiently many polling stations in every area that no one needs to go to one with a queue. (And/or by requiring that each polling stations has sufficient capacity to handle voters to achieve the same.)

[Martinned]

@Bumble: That's one way to describe it, sure. If it unavoidably takes more than five minutes to vote, something is going wrong. It's a voter's own choice if they go immediately after work, when it's obviously going to be very busy, but if there's a huge line there all day, or at least during the entire period after most people finish work, something is very wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

@ Martinned:
Curious as to whether you have early voting and if so how early?

[ducksalad]

It's like a highway. To avoid traffic jams at peak time, you need to have many extra lanes that are totally superfluous and a waste of acreage for 90% of the day.

To get enough surplus of poll workers you might need to make it semi-mandatory, like jury duty.

And some rough math says you'd need to buy and maintain about 1 voting machine for every 72 eligible voters if half show up in the last three hours and it takes each five minutes to fill out their ballot.

(Hope you don't find the mention of juries upsetting....)

[Martinned]

@Bumble: No early voting. (Unless you're abroad and voting by mail, obviously.)

During Covid they opened the polls for two days once, but otherwise you get that one day and that's it. It's even a weekday, because you can't very well ask the Bible Belt to vote on a Sunday.

(Not sure what the problem is with a Saturday, although originally I think we decided to vote on a Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday for the same reason that the US did, i.e. so that people wouldn't even have to start travelling to vote on the Sunday. I don't think there is any version of Judaism that would consider it a violation of the Sabbath to walk to the polling station and vote with a pencil and paper, although I might be wrong about that.)

[ducksalad]

(continued) But that 1 machine for every 72 voters assumes they show up at a constant rate spread out over the three hours. As you know if you've thought carefully about why you are sitting in a traffic jam, short periods when the arrival rate exceeds the departure rate lead to queues that can last for many times the length of the disruption.

So to prevent a queue caused by the occasional Karen, or person who needs to do an affidavit, or fogie/OCD that takes 30 minutes to get through the two dozen different offices that might be on a typical US ballot, you would need way *more* poll workers and machines.

[Martinned]

@ducksalad: Hence my point that if you insist on voting between, say, 18.00 and 18.30, you can't expect to be able to do so without a fair bit of waiting. But you should be able to come back, say, 30 mins later (or after dinner) and vote with max 5 mins wait. It should not require a crazy effort from the state to make that possible.

In the US there might well be a question of how this works in very rural areas. But my sense is that the crazy queueing usually happens in cities. And there's no excuse there.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think there is any version of Judaism that would consider it a violation of the Sabbath to walk to the polling station and vote with a pencil and paper, although I might be wrong about that.)

You are in fact entirely wrong about that. Obviously most Jews are not shomer shabbos, but the ones who are would find that to be a violation of multiple commandments. Even if it voting were oral, it would be forbidden business dealings, but writing (or using a voting machine) would be an additional violation.

[ducksalad]

Martinned: Of course it's possible if enough measures are taken.

- Spend a lot more money on the election, perhaps twice as much.
- Extend the law requiring employers to allow time off to vote, to also require employers to allow time off to be a poll worker (again like jury duty).

But anyway, you should also keep in the mind that when something is in the news it's because it's unusual. Super epic lines aren't the norm. I live in a metro area with about 800k people. Usually no line at all or one person ahead of me if voting early, and my longest ever wait was about 30 minutes.

And since I insist on bringing up jury duty....now those are some epic waits. Expect to kill a whole morning if you *don't* even make it from the cattle call into the actual pool assigned to a court, and two whole mornings if you make it to voir dire but don't get picked. If you do get picked it's much worse. And around here we get called up about as frequently as presidential elections.

[Martinned]

@David: Interesting.

How is voting a "business dealing"? As you noted upthread, an individual person's vote makes no difference to anything. It's a purely expressive act, like singing and dancing.

Similarly, I suppose one could have quite a conversation about whether colouring a box red is "writing".

[SRG2]

The voter ID fight here in the US is mostly due to a long standing perception

that the Republicans will erect such obstacles to voting as will disproportionately affect Democratic voters. The bperception is accurate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dick Chaney dead at age 84.

[SRG2]

I hope that before they bury him they cut off his head and put a stake through his heart.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you would.

[loki13]

In further "stupid Trump DOJ news," (combined with ... um, "Trump appointed Judge mistake news") ... we have the ongoing saga of the dastardly individual who used a sandwich against a federal agent at ... POINT BLANK range.

Putting aside the sheer absurdity of it all (which even the Judge started by saying, and I apologize for paraphrasing, "WTF is this doing in federal court?") ... the DOJ apparently asked for, and received, the ability to conduct all jury selection without any public ability to hear it (while noise cancellation was going on).

The defense raised and preserved an objection at the end, and stated that it needed to be redone so people could hear it.

The Judge was like, "Naw."

Um .... unfortunately, this is structural error. There's a 7-2 case from SCOTUS, and it's just a little more than a decade old, saying YOU KANT DO THAT.

Which means that the incompetence of the DOJ (and the inexperience of this Trump judge) means that the DASTARDLY SANDWICH ASSAULTER can't lose if this continues. Any verdict against him will be overturned on appeal. Pretty pretty pretty pretty quickly.

[David Nieporent]

Are you sure it's incompetence?

1) If the guy is acquitted, then it's moot.
2) If the guy is convicted, then Trump has his headline, which is all he cares about. Indeed, having the conviction overturned might be helpful to him so that he can rail about judges and call for their impeachment.

[loki13]

Well, I'm a little mystified about Judge Nichols. I don't know much about him, but what little I know indicates that while he was Trump-appointed, he is not ... Trumpy, if you know what I mean. Seems like just a weird error.

But yes, I do think it is incompetence on the part of the DOJ, simply because ... there has been a LOT of that. Well, that and dishonesty (see, e.g., tricking the clerk in the sentencing of Taranto to "disappear" a filing). I don't assume this DOJ is playing 4D chess, although they still have some decent people at the appellate level from what I've seen.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not saying that it's 4D chess; I'm saying that they just don't care.

Nichols' conduct here is puzzling, though; this guy — even if Trumpy — is highly qualified.

[loki13]

...um, maybe it's just because he was like, "What is this doing in federal court wasting my time? No, I don't want to go through voir dire again. I have other cases that actually matter and should be taking my time. If the DOJ want to eff up their own case, I'm going to give them the rope to hang themselves."

Best guess I have.

[not guilty]

Judge Carl Nichols is hardly inexperienced, having served since June 2019

[loki13]

News that would be a Watergate-level scandal for any prior administration but is just a Tuesday for Trump:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/watchdog-being-ousted-us-housing-regulator-involved-trump-crackdown-sources-say-2025-11-03/

The gist? We all know that the mortgage prosecutions are all BS, done by known Trump hatchet man Bill Pulte, and that no self-respecting attorney would bring those claims (which is why attorneys had to be fired and walking jokes like Halligan put in).

This revelation is that the IG for the Federal Housing and Finance Agency was fired. I know, shocked, Trump firing another IG ... almost like he doesn't want corruption reported ... what's that phrase ... oh yeah .... LET'S DO COCAINE IN THE SWAMP! Anyway ...

Apparently the FHFA's IG tried to provide information to the prosecutors in the E.D. Va. that was constitutionally required (you know, due process and all that) and he was about to send a letter to Congress letting them know that FHFA was not cooperating with the IG's office in providing that information. Pulte would have been informed of the letter, and ... weird, the IG was fired!

Reminder- they lie. They lie. They lie. And now they are covering up by not providing the documents and evidence that are required to provide for court cases (and would show the lies), and they are firing the people who are saying that they aren't providing it.

[Martinned]

RIP Dick Cheney. Back when this blog first started, we all thought that he was pretty much as bad as a US Vice President was likely to get. How wrong we were...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W7rc-HrmIc

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet SRG2 would decapitate the corpse and drive a stake through his heart.

[Martinned]

Understandable. Just because the GOP found a way to nominate much, much worse candidates for high office doesn't mean that Cheney was a saint. The man should have spent the last 20 years in prison.

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Dick Cheney, one of the worst vice-presidents in American history (along with Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew).

Harry Whittington was unavailable for comment.

[Martinned]

I don't think that's right. I think he belongs in the Nixon category of "competent but evil". The whole point of Cheney on the ticket was that he knew how to run the government so that Bush didn't need to, and I think that's how things went.

[ducksalad]

How is that different from "worst"?

The office has few duties, and those few do not require any special skills. There's no need for competence as long as they stay in office. If an incompetent did move up then they'd be "worst president, but formerly OK vice president".

The only way to be a bad vice president is by actively doing bad stuff, which actually requires some level of ability. Burr, Agnew, and Cheney meet that criterion.

[Martinned]

I don't think that's a sensible way to think about the Vice-President, and certainly not a Vice-President who was specifically chosen to support a President with doubtful skill at carrying out his office.

The primary duty of the Vice-President is to be the most senior advisor of the President. No Vice-President has needed to take over from the President since Reagan (unofficially) and JFK, and it doesn't seem sensible to evaluate them based on their ability to have a pulse. (Or to break the tie in the Senate as per the President's instructions, for that matter.)

So the best metric seems to be whether they did a good job supporting their President as/when needed. And Cheney was competent at that, except that he used that ability for evil. By the same yardstick Vance is a much better Vice-President than Pence, in that he actually gets Trump to listen to him every once in a while. (Although again usually in order to get him to do evil shit.)

[David Nieporent]

The primary duty of the Vice-President is to be the most senior advisor of the President.

That’s not true as a formal legal matter and I don't think it's true as a practical matter, either.

[not guilty]

The survivors of hundreds of thousands of casualties in the Iraq war might disagree as to Cheney's competence.

[Estragon]

Dick Cheney got 6 draft deferments and then sent young Americans off to Iraq to fight in a war he and his buddies cooked up based on lies. If this isn’t bad enough, one can draw a direct line from what he was able to accomplish (and I use that term loosely) and what this administration is attempting today. I fervently hope he is receiving his eternal reward this very moment, and for every moment hence into until the end of time.

[shawn_dude]

Seems like a reasonable discussion about what is worse: competent evil or incompetence?

[loki13]

Let's see ... in other news!

The DOJ has formally requested to dismiss the currently pending en banc appeal before the 9th, stating it is moot since the District Court has now entered a preliminary injunction (and btw will enter the full order on or before Friday). Oregon / Portland will oppose.

Issues/questions-
1. From a "what happens" standpoint assuming it is mooted, then I assume that there will be an appeal of the Final Order, and since the earlier panel opinion was vacated when the case was taken en banc it will remain vacated and that terrible opinion will be gone.

2. From a purely procedural standpoint, it would normally make sense to have any appeal of the final order based on a more developed factual record.

3. From the "what is the Trump administration doing," standpoint ... hmmm.. well, they obviously don't like the fact that the full Ninth was not happy with the panel's opinion. And I am guessing that their thought process went like this-
a. Right now, we have a limited district court decision, but the full Ninth might give us a terrible decision, and a terrible standard, that will binding on ALL THE NINTH CIRCUIT, and then Trump won't get to play general on the West Coast when his feels are hurt.
b. However, the facts in the Final Order ... the actual facts ... those are going to be so much worse. Which means that if we appeal that, it's ... might be an even bigger uphill climb.
c. On the other hand ... justice delayed is justice denied. Instead, we can just suck it up in Portland and maybe even ... not appeal? That way we don't get adverse precedent in the 9th, and we can just keep doin' it in other cities. In fact, we can just wait for SCOTUS in the 7th Cir. case and maybe something good might happen there!

It's kind of the thing with this administration- you have to remember that they don't want to follow the law. They will keep going until the Court says, "Stop." And even then, the Court has to say "Stop," in an actual order, that is filed, and leaves no wriggle room whatsoever ("Oh, we thought you meant that we supposed to stop shipping out kids in green planes, so we've been shipping them out in red planes."). And, of course, they will keep going anywhere else the order does not apply to them, which is why their appellate strategy (which cases to appeal and which not to) has been very very very deliberate.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, you're seriously taking a run at Martinned for second-most-prolific fabricated rage spewer. (Sarc will never be bested, sorry.)

Pace yourself, bro -- more than 3.2 years left!

[Michael P]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/

The BBC “doctored” a Donald Trump speech by making him appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riot, according to an internal whistleblowing memo seen by The Telegraph.

It's too bad that lots of people believed that false narrative, in spite of being repeatedly told why it was wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Did the BBC — lol, as if Americans were getting their news from that — also "doctor" Trump's twitter account to make it look like he summoned his acolytes to Washington on J6 and told them it would "be wild"? Donald Trump spent two full months encouraging the insurrection.

[ThePublius]

"the insurrection"

Right. I bet you believe Trump colluded with the Russians in 2016, and that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz posted it 18 hours ago, above.

Glad you two are both right on the important and stuff.

[Life of Brian]

What would we do without our dearly beloved Comment Cop?

[Michael P]

We would continue to be right on the important stuff, I suspect.

[loki13]

I am reading the live reporting from THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY!

Day two of the Point Blank Sandwich Case-

The officer Sandwich Guy is charged with assaulting testifies that he could feel the impact of the sandwich through his ballistic vest, and it “exploded all over my uniform.” He says he could “smell the onions and the mustard.”

h/t Molly Roberts

I can't wait for the expert witness. "Those ballistics vests were designed to stop bullets, but we never tested them against well-designed sandwiches at point-blank range. It could have gone straight through it!"

[ducksalad]

If they call the vest maker they ought to call in the sandwich maker as well. For the defense: "The customer did not order the military grade mustard so we used restaurant grade." For the prosecution: "The customer seemed nervous and uninterested in eating the sandwich. He ordered heavy and pungent ingredients instead of light and tasty ones."

[Michael P]

https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-found-not-guilty-of-terror-offence-for-failing-to-give-police-access-to-his-phone-at-channel-tunnel-13463595

Tommy Robinson acquitted because, among other things, police illegally targeted him because of his political beliefs.

[Martinned]

Isn't the rule of law great? You should try it!

[not guilty]

Interesting. I note that this trial was in the UK. In federal court here, any issue as to selective or vindictive prosecution must be raised by pretrial motion, Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(A)(iv), and does not present a jury issue.

[loki13]

Further unsurprising news about the jackbooted thugs that Trump has empowered, and that this administration regularly lies about, Part One Billion...

In the Chicago litigation, they have filed the testimony of Hott (interim Field Director of ICE / Aspiring Hugo Boss Model) and Bovino (Border Patrol Chief / Walking Raging Priapism) in which the following occurred:

1. Hott was asked if it was unconstitutional to arrest people for just being opposed to operation Midway Blitz. He responded ... No.

2. Bovino first said he has never seen non-violent protests, and that he was allowed to "go hard" at the protesters. and that he had INSTRUCTED his officers to arrest people who make hyperbolic comments.

Look, people can disbelieve all the mounting video evidence of these Federal Thugs detaining and beating up and abducting and shooting American citizens (not to mention all the other stuff they are doing). But now they are giving sworn testimony that they think protected speech is unconstitutional, and they instruct their thugs to arrest people for it.

There's the boot... now, who wants to lick it first?

[David Nieporent]

Do you have a link? I'd like to read the whole thing.

[loki13]

There's been a number of filings (go to court listener recap for the flurry, docket 1:25-cv-12173).

You want DOC 195, but they corrected (and redacted) some of the best stuff. But you'll still see where it was. There are screenshots that were taken before the corrected entry went up.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, I obviously know about courtlistener; I was just being too lazy to figure out which of the oodles of cases out there this was. It's very hard to keep track of which outrage goes where.

[loki13]

It's not all of them, but I find that this is a helpful resource when I am trying to sort through the general WTFness of it all-

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

[David Nieporent]

Having now read the redacted filing and seen a screenshot of the unredacted part you describe: why on earth was it appropriate to redact those particular statements?

[loki13]

Not a clue, but not going to read through all the filings to try and figure it out. Seems ... bizarre.

I'm guessing that the DOJ objected on the basis of ... "You can't quote deposition transcripts that show we are a bunch of lawless goons that lie like rugs. Gotta redact that!"

[Michael P]

What kind of "error" results in dumping everyone who's not registered as a R or D from poll books (for an entire county)?

https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/chester-county-pennsylvania-poll-book-issues-provisional-ballot/

[David Nieporent]

By the way, this is why the people who say, "Why aren't all votes counted on election day??!?!?!?!? This is fraud!!!!!" are — to the extent they are sincere — misguided. There are always provisional ballots that need to be assessed and counted — for one reason or another — and that can't be done on the spot.

No election is fully counted on election day, unless there's some local election in a small town.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Probably a simple error in a database query, combined with a lack of adequate testing. They corrected the problem, printed new books, and delivered them in a matter of hours, so it was an easy problem to fix. They should have checked the books more carefully prior to election day and caught the problem then.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah. My guess: Pennsylvania has closed primaries, so only registered members of parties, not independents, can vote. That was, obviously, the previous election in PA, so they would've generated polling books for those that excluded independents. So whoever was generating the books for this particular county's general election probably forgot to untoggle that before printing the books this time.

[loki13]

In the "you can't make this up" .... this is the state of the DOJ now.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.148.0.pdf

Very briefly- the judge overseeing the appointment clause issue demanded, inter alia, the full transcript of the grand jury proceedings.

The DOJ ... didn't provide it. In fact, they only provided the snippet that doesn't shed light on a lot of the important issues. Which ... shocking, I know.

You know the judge isn't pleased when they say- Give it to me no later than tomorrow at 5pm.

(This ties into what I said above about court orders. The judge wanted the "complete grand jury transcripts," which the DOJ read to mean ... "portions of the grand jury transcript that don't look bad," so the judge had to be more specific about what, um, COMPLETE means.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

This is really bad. It is similar to Trump turning over some of the classified documents in his possession and claiming that he turned over all of them. The order seems inadequate to the problem, which is that the prosecution attempted to pass off a partial transcript as a complete transcript. If the judge receives a longer transcript tomorrow, how will he know that it is complete? If there are no consequences for trying to deceive the judge beyond having to comply with an order that the judge has already issued, that creates an incentive for attorneys to attempt to deceive the court, because it makes lying to the court a gamble where the attorney wins if it works and loses nothing if it doesn’t.

[loki13]

As noted in the order, it was obvious that it was a partial transcript- both because of the extrinsic factors (it failed to include those things that you would need in a grand jury proceeding, and it didn't have ... um ... the entire presentation that resulted in the first returned no bill of the original three count indictment) as well as intrinsic factors (the ... um .... INDICTMENT SIGNER apparently referred to other comments she made during the parts of the transcript that were provided that were not in the partial transcript that was provided).

The real issue is that judges aren't dummies. And a lot of proceedings do require a bit of an honor system - more importantly, it has been traditional that when the DOJ says something is the case, courts believe it. But that integrity is pretty much destroyed now. Both before this Court, and before district courts in general.

Which means that, for example, when the DOJ asserts something that in the past would go accepted by a court, now ... it won't. Or there will be an evidentiary hearing instead of an affidavit. It will all be scrutinized- and when the other side says, "You can't believe this," the Court will say, "Well, I'm not going to say that ... but I will make the DOJ produce competent witness testimony under oath now."

[David Nieporent]

The real issue is that judges aren't dummies.

But Halligan is a dummy. So that does raise the question: was she deliberately hiding parts unhelpful to her position, or was she just too dumb to know what she was doing?

[loki13]

Um... I'd say that this was both stupid (both because the order said "COMPLETE" and because it would be clearly and laughably obvious that it was not COMPLETE) as well as deliberate.

The only part (based on the order) that was given was the colloquy between her and the witness. Not her pre- and post-witness discussions with the grand jury. Not the whole fiasco of the first attempt. Not any of the ... discussions ... she had with the grand jury to keep them there. And so on.

Incompetent and malevolent are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, speaking of Halligan and WTF???

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.583341/gov.uscourts.vaed.583341.46.0.pdf

I've never seen this. I'm not going to discuss the merits at all, because it's just ... it's procedurally weird to me (caveat- I do civil, not criminal).

The gist- Court ordered government to produce discovery on Latecia James' vindicative prosecution claim. Government didn't object. Government didn't file a motion asking for reconsideration. Government didn't move for a protective order or anything like that.

NOPE. Instead, the DOJ filed a NOTICE saying ... Naw. Not gonna do it.

WTF? I, too, would love to file a NOTICE with the Court saying, "Naw, Ima good. Not gonna do what the Court says. Peace out!"

Idle speculation- is the fact that they did this notice at the same time that we learned that the FHFA is refusing to produce documents that are constitutionally required in the mortgage fraud cases a coincidence?

Remember the mantra- they lie. They lie. They lie. It's the simplest explanation for most issues.

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ's notice relied on a case, United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 315 (4th Cir. 2001), which it claimed held that discovery related to vindictive prosecution required "objective evidence tending to show the existence of prosecutorial misconduct." While there certainly is language to that effect in Wilson, the 4th Circuit expressly "d[id] not reach the government's challenge to the district court's ruling ordering discovery."

Moreover, the citation in Wilson was to a SCOTUS case about discovery about selective prosecution, which is pretty different. Discovery about selective prosecution requires that the defendant be given evidence about the prosecutorial charging decisions in lots of cases, all unrelated to the actual defendant. Discovery about vindictive prosecution only requires evidence about the defendant's own case.

In any case, as you say, the proper response if you believe that a court's discovery order is improper is to move for a protective order, and if that fails mandamus. Not to simply defy the order.

[loki13]

I appreciate you looking at the caselaw.

I didn't bother, because at this point, I am just assuming that the cases cited by the DOJ don't actually stand for the proposition that the DOJ says that they do.

(Again, I think it's marginally better with what remains in their appellate division, but ... for anyone who has litigated against the DOJ, to see filings that misstate the law and, um, lie about facts? It's truly shocking.)

[loki13]

Justy checked that docket. This will shock you (well, not you, DMN, just, um, Halligan) but there is a minute entry that was just put in.

The Court has received the government's filing regarding discovery on the issue of vindictive and/or selective prosecution (ECF No. 40). The Order on the parties' jointly recommended discovery plan (ECF No. 32) governs discovery in this case. To the extent any discovery dispute arises, the parties may address it in a motion.

LEARN 2 LAW GUD!

[not guilty]

I wonder if this order is a precursor to contempt proceedings in the event of noncompliance.

[loki13]

...if I was a DOJ attorney, I would be sure as heck to make sure the COMPLETE (as in the definition everyone else understands) depo transcript was provided to the Court yesterday, and certainly before 5pm.

But then again, I have too much integrity to serve in this DOJ, so who knows? Contempt is usually a last resort. But it's also not a good idea to just anger judges that are ruling on your case.

[Martinned]

In a land far, far away, where they still do merger control:

Natural-resources company MMG’s $500 million bid for Anglo American's nickel business in Brazil has drawn an in-depth EU probe over concerns it could “divert” supply away from European markets.

"Ferronickel is a key input for European producers to manufacture high-quality, low-emission stainless steel at competitive prices, which is critical for many sectors,” the bloc’s competition chief Teresa Ribera said. “Our investigation aims to verify whether this concentration could jeopardize continued and reliable access in Europe to this important resource," she said.

Regulators rejected an attempt by Chinese-owned MMG and Anglo American to settle the concerns.

[SRG2]

In a time of war, is the president a civilian? The Constitution would appear to say, no, because "commander-in-chief" is clearly a military position and title.

[Mr. Bumble]

The title of Commander-in-Chief is not a military rank. That might be The Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
Governors are also Commander-in Chief of the state National Guard units unless called to federal service.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with Bumble here; POTUS is a civilian position regardless of peace or wartime.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yes, we have civilian control of the military. And the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a general not in the chain of command that advises the president because the president could have zero knowledge of the military and generals could manipulate the president. In fact the Deep State got General Flynn fired so that McMaster could manipulate Trump into escalating Afghanistan after Trump campaigned on ending the war. Once Trump gained confidence in year 4 of his first term he surrendered to the Taliban and ended the asinine war.

[SRG2]

POTUS is a civilian position regardless of peace or wartime.

Is that not begging the question?

And this passage from Federalist No. 69 seems pretty definitive:

Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy (my bold)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

If you define the C-in-c as first general and admiral it's hard to argue that C-in-C is not a military position.

FWIW I was not aware of this until just before I posted this response.

[David Nieporent]

Is that not begging the question?

It is not.

And I don't see how your quote helps your case, both because he wasn't given the title of "first General (or Admiral)" and because it describes his position wrt the armed forces as inferior to the British King's, and nobody thinks the British King is a military figure.

[SRG2]

The title of Commander-in-Chief is not a military rank.

It certainly sounds like one, and it would not be unprecedented for the head of an army to have a unique rank,

Governors are also Commander-in Chief of the state National Guard units

And hence are military for this purpose.

When there is no standing army - a position intended by the FFs - there would be no permanent rank. When the army was needed, civilians would assume the ranks they held part time, just as they do, for example, in Switzerland. Nobody thinks of all Swiss men - or Israelis adults - as military all the time. It seems perfectly reasonable for the Executive to be a civilian, and then change to be military in the event of war (or similar). That this is not normal nowadays doesn't change anything.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"When there is no standing army - a position intended by the FFs"

I understand that there's always been a standing army going back at least to the Constitution. Not always a big one - it went up and down depending on the situation, though now it's consistently big.

The FFs *did* insist on limiting appropriations to two years.

[David Nieporent]

[Moved]

[Malika la Maize]

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

This cunt belongs in a concentration camp.”

Sign o’the times!

[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?

[ReaderY]

At least you openly acknowledge you’re a Nazi who wants to put political opponents and judges who don’t rule the way you want them to in concentration camps.

Maybe dropping the pretense and being open about who you are and the kind of horrors, terror, and misery you want to bring on this country and its people is an improvement.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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).

[Mr. Bumble]

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

[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

[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);

[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.

[David Nieporent]

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

[Martinned]

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

[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.

[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.

[JohnSmith97]

And impossible to find out, thanks to the (D) party (and their reliable "friends", (D) appointed judges).

[Stephen Lathrop]

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

[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.

[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

[David Nieporent]

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.

Virtually every time you hear someone (generally a GOP official or right wing group) pat himself on the back for identifying lots of non-citizens voters, you'll find that they have identified non-citizens who have registered to vote, not non-citizens who have cast votes. (And then it often turns out that they're just working from old data, and the people they've identified are citizens.)

And common sense tells us that illegal immigrant voting isn't a real problem, because there is no incentive for illegal immigrants to vote. To do so is to commit a felony — one that's detectible, since whether someone is a citizen and whether someone votes are both matters of public record — and thus put a target on one's back even though there's no personal gain to be had from voting. (Unless one is just a really really big fan of those "I voted" stickers. But there are safer ways to get those.)

[Life of Brian]

there is no incentive for illegal immigrants to vote. To do so is to commit a felony — one that's detectible

That argument will never cease to be silly. Being in the country illegally is eminently detectable (by those that want to detect it, to be sure), and millions take their chances nonetheless.

[Nelson]

Well, LoB, if it’s so silly, then tell us: why would an illegal immigrant vote?

What sort of logic can the xenophobic right drum up to explain why someone would do something that gains them nothing and risks exposure and deportation?

[David Nieporent]

That argument will never cease to be silly. Being in the country illegally is eminently detectable (by those that want to detect it, to be sure), and millions take their chances nonetheless.

I know that reading is tough, but maybe you should try it sometimes. I didn't say that they wouldn't do it because it's detectable; I said that they wouldn't do it because it's detectable and — see, that's a conjunction that joins two things together — there's no gain to them from doing it.

In contrast, being in the country illegally does indeed provide a gain.

[Life of Brian]

Since you both made the same sillypuss argument, I'll just respond once: Doesn't the current state of affairs sorta rather compellingly show the direct benefit to illegal immigrants of Dems staying in power?

Even if you want to pretend to be naive enough not to comprehend that, they certainly do.

[David Nieporent]

Doesn't the current state of affairs sorta rather compellingly show the direct benefit to illegal immigrants of Dems staying in power?

It might. But an individual person voting has essentially zero impact on which party is in power. It's a basic collective action problem.

[Life of Brian]

But an individual person voting has essentially zero impact on which party is in power.

What incomprehensible savings of time and money you've just uncovered! We can ALL just stop voting, since none of our individual votes make a dime's worth of difference to the outcome!

You're smarter than this. I mean, you are, aren't you?

[David Nieporent]

What incomprehensible savings of time and money you've just uncovered! We can ALL just stop voting, since none of our individual votes make a dime's worth of difference to the outcome!

Um, yes, that's literally correct. Voting is indeed one of the biggest paradoxes in rational choice theory. Do you understand the concept of a collective action problem?

[Nelson]

“ Doesn't the current state of affairs sorta rather compellingly show the direct benefit to illegal immigrants of Dems staying in power?”

Except the “illegals are voting” claim isn’t limited to this year. It’s been a staple delusion of conservatives for decades.

Secondly, apparently you’ve never encountered the phrase “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze”. For someone to go through the effort and possibility of exposure to register illegally, they would have to believe that it would make a difference.

Normal people know that a decision to do something involves balancing pros and cons. Even a dim bulb can see that there would be no pro to adding a single vote to the tally, but many cons to trying it.

It would require the illegal voter to believe that there is a vast, secret, decades-long conspiracy that has never been discovered (despite strenuous effort by loons like Kobach) that would make their risk result in an electoral impact. Only the hard right is stupid enough to believe that.

“ Even if you want to pretend to be naive enough not to comprehend that, they certainly do.”

Strawman much? No one thinks that. The point is that the cons of risking exposure would never match, let alone overcome, the infinitesimal benefit of a single vote. Illegal doesn’t mean stupid or ignorant. Illegals can figure it out easily.

[Nelson]

“ We can ALL just stop voting, since none of our individual votes make a dime's worth of difference to the outcome!”

You can’t possibly be this stupid, can you? Do you really not comprehend the difference between a citizen, who has zero negative repercussions from registering and voting while also realizing that their single vote, alone, will not make a measurable impact on any election, and an illegal immigrant who realizes the same thing, but would risk a great deal to try to manage to register and vote illegally.

But beyond the simple ligic (which you fail to grasp), there is the actual, concrete, real-world confirmation:

-Kris Kobach, illegal-voting crusader
-five illegal votes in Kansas
-over the course of 40 years

Your delusional belief is disproved by logic and facts.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, if you've managed to academically convince yourself that nobody's vote actually, truly makes any difference under any circumstances whatsoever, bless your heart and do as you wish. The rest of us will continue actually deciding who wins.

[Life of Brian]

Do you really not comprehend the difference between a citizen, who has zero negative repercussions from registering and voting while also realizing that their single vote, alone, will not make a measurable impact on any election, and an illegal immigrant who realizes the same thing, but would risk a great deal to try to manage to register and vote illegally.

It's a respectable effort to try to weave in the life preserver Nieporent tried to throw into the thread, but unfortunately the question of whether any vote actually makes a difference in the outcome is fully independent of the legality of that vote.

That aside, are you seriously arguing that there actually would be a worse consequence for an individual getting caught illegally casting an individual ballot than the deportation that (at least under an administration such as this one that actually tries to enforce the law) they're already at risk of every day?

[David Nieporent]

It's a respectable effort to try to weave in the life preserver Nieporent tried to throw into the thread, but unfortunately the question of whether any vote actually makes a difference in the outcome is fully independent of the legality of that vote.

Nobody said it was related to the legality of the vote. The point is that it's related to the utility of the vote.

That aside, are you seriously arguing that there actually would be a worse consequence for an individual getting caught illegally casting an individual ballot than the deportation that (at least under an administration such as this one that actually tries to enforce the law) they're already at risk of every day?

Sigh. Once again: you are doing cost-benefit analysis without looking at both cost and benefit.

Illegal immigrant coming to US: major benefit to the immigrant, and the potential cost — deportation — puts him no worse off than if he hadn't come in the first place.

Illegal immigrant voting illegally in the US: no benefit to the immigrant, and the potential cost — prosecution and/or deportation — makes him far worse off than if he hadn't voted illegally.

[not guilty]

"And common sense tells us that illegal immigrant voting isn't a real problem, because there is no incentive for illegal immigrants to vote. To do so is to commit a felony — one that's detectible, since whether someone is a citizen and whether someone votes are both matters of public record — and thus put a target on one's back even though there's no personal gain to be had from voting. (Unless one is just a really really big fan of those "I voted" stickers. But there are safer ways to get those.)"

Not to mention that registering to vote requires a residential address which the registrant must disclose -- thus daring immigration officials, "Come here to find me." Illegal immigrants tend to avoid contact with governmental officials, even when they are victims of crime.

[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]

"The statute doesnt bar / prohibit the citizenship question,
Is the election assistance commission of executive branch or congressional branch."

Read the freaking opinion. The Constitutional provisions cited by the District Court allow Congress to regulate elections. See, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1, 8 (2013). The Constitution assigns no such authority to the President. Congress, if it chose to do so, indeed could require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. It has not done so, and the President has no authority to effect that requirement unilaterally.

NG's citation includes:

"(2) shall include a statement that—

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

"Including citizenship" -

Yes it does -- in the subsection where Congress put that language.

You falsely represented that it appears in 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1). It does not.

[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.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - The statute specifically states

2)shall include a statement that—
(A)specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

What part of the english language to you not grasp?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — The part I do not understand is the gibberish, where context gets scrambled and re-scrambled, with various words and phrases put back together in purpose-built new orders.

It matters that the power you insist on for the President was Constitutionally decreed for the Congress and for the states. No matter what text you find outside that context, that text does not apply within presidential context. You cannot take text from statutes which specifically discuss non-presidential powers, and say that because they are laws, they become presidential powers.

It seems as if you suppose the disputed notion of a unitary president would, if allowed, make any president all-powerful, rendering powerless and unnecessary the Congress and the state governments. I suggest that may be the nub of a reasoning problem you ought to reconsider.

[Nelson]

Not at all. Kris Kobach, decades-long “illegals vote by the millions” crusader, investigated (with the full support of the Kansas government and no judges preventing him from doing so) and found a grand total of 5 illegal voters in Kansas … in 40 years. As in an average of one illegal voting every two Presidential elections.

Tell me, genius, if he and everyone around him wanted to find these “illegals” who were voting illegally, why did he only find 1/8 of an illegal vote per year? Total.

No one stopped him, he had full support. And only found 5.

Five. Total.

Explain that. Because the obvious, logical, and sane explanation is that illegals voting isn’t a problem.

But activate your batshit powers and explain how a determined fanatic could only find five illegal votes in 40 years.

I anticipate radio silence from all the right-wing lunatics who insist that illegals voting isn’t a real thing.