Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[santamonica811]

My latest feel-good fantasy: It's Jan 2029, and President Rubio has been sworn in. (Or, President Harris, or President Sanders...doesn't matter if it's a Dem or a Rep). Big announcement from the White House.
"We've decided that the new Trump ballroom is indeed ugly, and detracts from the White House. Additionally, it's politically divisive. It did cost a bucketload to construct. But it's gonna cost only about $25-50,000,000 to tear down. And we got a check from George Soros for the full amount, and demolition starts next week. It will be completely gone within 14 days. A beautiful bigger rose garden will be back within several months."
Even better would be, "Elon Musk has decided to fund the entire cost of the demolition. He's indicated that he deeply regrets his role inside the Trump administration, he knows that actions speak louder than words, and so he's going to pay for the removal of the Trump Eyesore."

Now, I think the above is obviously completely unrealistic (in the sense of either of those two filthy-rich men paying for the ballroom's demolition on their own. But I do think there is a non-zero chance that a new President might say, "The ballroom was put up as a vanity project with zero Congressional input. I (the new President) am going to get rid of it on my own in the same way."

{Hey, at least the thought of it puts me to sleep with a smile on my face.}

[Martinned]

What do you mean cost of demolition? I thought we've now established that the president can do with the armed forces whatever he likes, foreign or domestic? Why not simply have them use the ballroom for target practice?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't say it's totally a fantasy: Look at the German government paying good money to implode cooling towers, just to make sure that if a future government comes to its senses about nuclear power, restarting the reactors will be extra expensive.

[Commenter_XY]

It is nihilism, at it's core.

[Michael P]

Are you going to replace the ballroom with permanent tents and Port-A-Potties on the lawn?

It's replacing temporary tents and Port-A-Potties. State events are bigger than there were decades ago, but we've been asking foreign dignitaries to use chemical toilets for decades because we don't have a space like this. But sure, go ahead and fantasize about turning the pages back to using White Outhouses.

[Mr. Bumble]

Speed up construction and turn it into a soup kitchen for unemployed government workers and starving EBT recipients.

[Martinned]

Still better than the Trump Regime, which is sending *employed* government workers to soup kitchens.

US troops given German food bank advice amid shutdown

The US Army Garrison Bavaria removed references to German food banks and other discounted food provision services from its "shutdown guidance" web page.

Signs of the ongoing US government shutdown causing difficulties or uncertainties for US soldiers appeared, and then were swiftly removed after drawing attention, on the US Army Garrison Bavaria website this week.

The US Army Garrison Bavaria is the army's largest group outside the US with around 36,000 troops stationed across four facilities in Germany.

"The shutdown will impact services provided by the Garrison at installations across Rose Barracks, Tower Barracks, Hohenfels and Garmisch," it said on a web page to provide guidance to members of how to deal with the government shutdown.

"During this time our US Army Garrison Bavaria team will continue to deliver life, health, and safety services for those working and living in our community."

The web page also contained a "running list of German support organizations for your kit bags" that included charities like Foodsharing e.V. and Essen für Alle (Food for All), as well as the app Too Good To Go.

At the top of the list was Tafel Deutschland, which it described as "the umbrella organization distributes food to people in poverty through its more than 970 local food banks."

https://www.dw.com/en/us-troops-given-german-food-bank-advice-amid-shutdown/a-74633962

[apedad]

Aaaaaaand the notice about the German sites have been removed.

[Martinned]

Well, yes. Being embarrassed will do that.

At least it's good to know that the Regime is still capable of shame.

[SykesFive]

My grandfathers handed out chocolate bars as they helped liberate Europe.
What are we even doing?

[Martinned]

These days European chocolate bars are much better, because they have much more actual chocolate in them.

[David Nieporent]

It's replacing temporary tents and Port-A-Potties. State events are bigger than there were decades ago, but we've been asking foreign dignitaries to use chemical toilets for decades because we don't have a space like this. But sure, go ahead and fantasize about turning the pages back to using White Outhouses.

I am quite certain that a small structure containing additional plumbing fixtures could have been erected much more cheaply and without tearing down the entire east wing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Day late, dollar short.
Maybe it should be left in ruins as a testament to how you feel about Trump.

[Harvey Mosley]

"White Outhouses"

That's funny!

[Swede425]

You sound totally fine.
No, really.

[Stephen Lathrop]

santamonica811 — Have you yet seen the new splash of gilded gee-gaw above the door leading into the Oval Office? Or the large gilded script beside the door, announcing, "The Oval Office." The new decorative ensemble makes the door to the Oval Office look like the entry to a pastry shop in a glitz-afflicted mall.

I do not want that torn down. I want it preserved, and moved to the Smithsonian.

Maybe for a display on American constitutionalism, with emphasis on the 25th Amendment.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop - "Maybe for a display on American constitutionalism, with emphasis on the 25th Amendment."

Why were you silent on the 25th during the last administration? Quite a few commentators here insisting that facts didnt exist which would justify invoking the 25th during the last administration.

[David Nieporent]

The "large gilded script beside the door, announcing, 'The Oval Office'" is actually just pieces of paper taped to the wall. Trump doesn't care how tacky things look; he is just a mentally ill person impressed by the color gold.

[Armchair]

I mean....why? A few points.

1. Presidents change the White House all the time, without Congressional approval. Obama put a garden in. Carter put solar panels in. Ford put in a swimming pool. That's before the big changes done by FDR and TR

2. Unlike all of the above...the ballroom services a real governmental purpose. It serves as a location to have large state dinners. Right now, many people across the spectrum agree, the current indoor space is limited. It's not a "vanity project."

3. Destroying such a useful piece of work, so quickly, is basically just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[wvattorney13]

It is easy. Because Trump did it. If Trump cured lung cancer, the Dems would repeal all of the anti-smoking laws so that more people got emphysema.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible that you think people being pissed at the sudden and unilateral tearing down of the East Wing can't be real.

When the only defense you got is telepathically finding bad faith it's not a good sign. Here, you have a failure of imagination or empathy.

Try and understand that there are people different than you bothered by different things than you.

[Armchair]

No, we get the anger. What we don't get is the irrational anger.

Let's use an example. Your family needs a car. Your family wins a car of their choice from the dealership. But your jerk husband picks out an F-150 before asking you. This makes you angry. You wanted a cute minivan. There's anger, and that's fine. But then to show him up, you decide to drive the F-150 into a lake. That's irrational. You still needed a car, and you just destroyed it because you were so angry.

The irrational anger is what's the concern.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm talking about tearing down the East Wing.

What the fuck are you talking about? Your analogy attempt here does not track at all.

[Armchair]

The East Wing is already torn down. The F-150 has already been bought in the analogy.

Santa is talking about destroying the new ballroom. IE, driving the F-150 into a lake.

[Sarcastr0]

You were taking the post with 'we got a check from George Soros for the full amount' seriously?

Is this website like the only interaction with humans you're allowed or something?

Anyhow, your comment 2 hours ago, and wvattorney13's reply were not about tearing anything down, they were defending the project.
That's the arguments I replied to.

No new goalposts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Another example demonstrating that Sarcastro can't read.

The comment 2 hours ago wasn't defending the project, it was criticizing tearing down a perfectly good ballroom out of spite.

And the F150 analogy was spot on.

[Armchair]

"Another example demonstrating that Sarcastro can't read."

Yep.

[Bwaaah]

Well, no. To be precise, he _can_ read. If he couldn't, his comments would be forgivable.

If we are to follow Sarc's logic through your analogy, it would make sense to drive the F-150 into a lake as long as a tow company offered to pull it out and take it to the junker for free.

The F-150 analogy was spot on. And Sarc is....Sarc.

[Bob from Ohio]

" people being pissed at the sudden and unilateral tearing down of the East Wing can't be real."

You guys have gone hysterical at literally EVERYTHING Trump has done since he came down the escalator in 2015.

So no, its not real, its just more irrational hatred on display.

[Martinned]

The authoritarian-chic design of the ballroom, like everything else Trump changed about the White House, is a monument to his philosophy of government as much as a literal gold statue of the man would be. Such monuments to the most un-American government that the US has ever had have to be taken down.

[Krayt]

I wonder what the Vegas odds are of it turning into a beloved landmark icon, akin to the once-hated Eiffel Tower.

Ehhh, I like throwing ideas into echo chambers, but not this one. You guys do your own work.

Eat your Wheaties to find out! Bah, most are old men or a fast-approaching approximation, and will never make it.

[David Nieporent]

Now, I think the above is obviously completely unrealistic (in the sense of either of those two filthy-rich men paying for the ballroom's demolition on their own. But I do think there is a non-zero chance that a new President might say, "The ballroom was put up as a vanity project with zero Congressional input. I (the new President) am going to get rid of it on my own in the same way."

They are not going to tear down an already-built structure. Even if they could get someone to pay for doing so, it would be pointless and wasteful, justified primarily by spite. (And, no, you can't look at the demo cost; they would have to put something up there, which costs the full construction money.) They may remodel the inside to get rid of all the utterly tasteless gold frills that will undoubtedly adorn the ballroom itself, but they're not taking down the building.

[grb]

Frank Lloyd Wright said, “A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines”. No one is going to tear down Trump's monstrosity. It will obliviously be much too large, being twice the size of the iconic building that is an image of American worldwide. And given Trump will sabotage whatever minimal review process that occurs, it will probably be grossly detailed.

There's troubling signs of that already : The three major classical orders have a ascending precedence, from Doric, to Ionic, and then Corinthian. When all are used on a single building (such as the Colosseum in Rome), Doric is at the bottom and Corinthian on top. When all are used in a collection of buildings, Corinthian is reserved for the most important structure. So guess what? The White House main structure is Ionic; Trump's bling palace is currently rendered as Corinthian. He can't help himself and it will predictably get worse.

Which brings us to another ego-driven problem. With a nonexistent review process and accelerated construction timeline, shortcuts will be taken. To build something like this right and appropriate for its context takes time. You need to draw on a limited number of craftsmen and subcontractors since most structures today just aren't built that way. It should not be constructed like another frou-frou bauble at Mar-a-Lago. But there's a large probability it will.

But - hey - the AI video was basically true. Whether it's the Constitution, rule-of-law, or the White House grounds : Trump shits on everything.

[Life of Brian]

get rid of all the utterly tasteless gold frills that will undoubtedly adorn the ballroom itself

Le Resistance is now going to suddenly boycott an entire color because Trump used it? Holy crap.

[David Nieporent]

No, because it's utterly tasteless. Please try to pay attention.

[Life of Brian]

Which particular gold details do you consider to be "utterly tasteless" in the provided rendering?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Isn't this something most of us have to deal with in our daily lives? Your predecessor(s) built a bunch of stupid crap. You really want to tear it all down and start from scratch. But we quickly find out that this is almost never the most efficient solution.

[John F. Carr]

You want to destroy a government building because Trump likes it. It's not a statue of Trump kissing Putin. It will be a useful building. If symbolism is your thinkg solicit donations to name it the Karl Marx meeting hall and replace the gold with tin.

[santamonica811]

Heh. Good idea. Don't need donations for that (Would it cost more than $100 to change a plaque or two?). Don't like your suggestion for the name-change, though. I'm thinking, "The Obama-Kenya Meeting Hall." Forever honoring President Obama (and ignoring Trump's role) would be enough for me. Making Trump's head explode with wrath would merely be a side-bonus.

Wonderful suggestion. And incredibly inexpensive. The best part is, it's totally doable. There is zero reason that any future President can't simply announce, "Due to his great works during his presidency, I'm honoring Barack Obama by renaming this ballroom in honor."

Wait, I have an even better idea! "America, I give you the Barack Obama Obamacare Meeting Hall!!! In honor of Obama's signature legislative achievement."

[Harvey Mosley]

"America, I give you the Barack Obama Obamacare Meeting Hall!!! In honor of Obama's signature legislative achievement."

Which, according to Congressional Democrats, is too expensive for people to afford.

[Mr. Bumble]

@santamonica811: Of course you, David Notsoimportant, grb and others would have preferred the "make believe ballroom" of tents and port-a-potties that were being used.
(Make Believe Ballroom is an allusion to a radio show that used to be broadcast on WNEW? radio in NYC.)

[grb]

You can't justify that by anything I said, but these are desperate times for Cultists. I understand and almost sympathize.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly desperate times and the ballroom is fait accompli.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's Jan 2029, and President Rubio has been sworn in.

God make it so.

[Frank Drackman]

Shouldn’t Alternative History be set in the past??

[Commenter_XY]

An impression from a 'not lawyer' of the oral argument yesterday in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. The Donald (heh)....wow, wow, wow. It is well worth listening to. I had not fully appreciated how big the scope of the ruling could be wrt separation and scope of Executive art2 power. Annoyingly (to me), Sauer sounded like he needed a cough drop or a sip of water. Did he have a cold or something?

Suppose SCOTUS agrees with LRI and rules against POTUS Trump and his administration: The tariffs must go! What actually happens from that point?

Pragmatically, how do you unwind trillions of dollars in country to country agreements regulating global commerce under a new trade framework, when you are a superpower? And then the private company to company agreements based on that same legal framework? It is not as simple as saying, "Ooops, here is a refund check" to 197 countries.

[OpinionsVary]

"It is not as simple as saying, "Ooops, here is a refund check" to 197 countries."

Well obviously not. It's the US based importers who pay tariffs and hence get any checks.

And while that many checks isn't easy, the government seemed to think rebate checks where perfectly doo-able when arguing for a stay of the lower court rulings. It was part of their argument a stay of the orders was appropriate.

[David Nieporent]

That the government made up whatever shit was necessary to get a stay — something Katyal did try to argue — doesn't mean that they are doable. (It's easy to write a refund check to the importer who wrote the check to the U.S. treasury, but the problem is that this would be a windfall to the importers, who passed the costs along to consumers.)

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you've discovered why prediction markets show very different prices for "the Supreme Court will strike down the tariffs" and "the money will be refunded".

[Darth Buckeye]

I think Roberts will do his usual magic and find a way to support the government decisions and actions that have already been taken. Ending the tariffs would be highly disruptive; he will deal with it the same way he dealt with the Affordable Care Act by finding some way to rule that the tariffs are constitutional.

[David Nieporent]

It is not as simple as saying, "Ooops, here is a refund check" to 197 countries.

Sigh. TARIFFS. ARE. PAID. BY. AMERICANS. Not one penny would go to any country.

Pragmatically, how do you unwind trillions of dollars in country to country agreements

There is no such money. It's a delusion in Trump's mind. No country has agreed to pay — let alone actually paid — anything — let alone "trillions." They couldn't even if they wanted to, as they cannot control the investment decisions of private companies. (And of course, investments are trade deficits, so if these countries did undertake these investments, it would be the exact problem Trump was pretending to address.)

[Fist of Etiquette]

I may start to infest this area of Reason. I haven't decided yet.

[DDHarriman]

I bet there's an awfully stupid comment under this ^^^^ gray box.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure who (the) Zoran Mandamn-he resembles more, Qusay or Uday Hussein. I'm willing to give the guy a chance though but I'm not really enthusiastic about his Pogrom.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

JFC:

An American father and his teenage son died after being stung by swarms of venomous wasps on a zip-lining tour through the tropical forests of northern Laos last month.

Daniel Owen, 47, originally from Idaho Falls, Idaho, and his son Cooper, 15, were visiting from Haiphong, Vietnam, where Mr. Owen was the director of QSI International School and Cooper was a student.

The attack occurred on Oct. 15 at an adventure park near the city of Luang Prabang, north of the Thai border… Asian giant hornets, also known as murder hornets, sting with a venom that contains neurotoxins and tissue-destroying enzymes that can be fatal, especially for those who receive multiple stings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/world/asia/laos-wasp-attack-father-son.html

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, THAT kind of "Wasp"
I was imagining swarms of George Will/Plimpton/Tucker Carlson's with those John Lennon Glasses, Bowties, and White Shoes engulfing the 2 Hayseeds(HT Hobie-stank).
I think I'd rather take the Insect variety.

Frank

[Michael P]

Murder hornets have illegally immigrated to the United States and preyed on innocent, hard-working American bees.

[grb]

I read one account of a species of bee able to protect their hive against these Super Hornets. How? They would swarm over the invader in a mass and start furiously beating their wings. The effort would generate heat which they could withstand better than the hornet. It would be cooked to death.

Nature is strange, bizarre, and ruthless....

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the lesson is; don't fuck with bees.

[David Nieporent]

Literally or figuratively.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "...and the lesson is; don't fuck with bees"

Which suggests a favorite adage, supposedly from Catalonia: "con paciencia y saliva, el elefante se la metió a la hormiga". As I understand it, the English translation is : With patience and saliva, the elephant fucks the ant. That seems worthy as praise for unrelenting determination (of any kind).

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck with, not fuck.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now you tell us.

[Bwaaah]

Nasty swelling. Probably hadda turn 'em on their sides to get the caskets closed.

[jb]

Fortunately it seems like they managed to eradicate them:

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/12/18/invasive-murder-hornets-found-in-washington-have-been-eradicated-officials-say/

[Jmaie]

I’ll believe that when ten years go by without a siting…

[Bored Lawyer]

Clearly Trump's fault. Those wasps were enraged by the new ballroom, and took it out on the nearest Americans.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't...stop...defending...Trump.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are you old enough to remember when Hitler killed John Lennon?

[Kazinski]

Luong Prabang is a nice place, but I passed on the Murder Hornet tour.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now Thursday Open Thread is back?
Will every day be an open thread day?

[Martinned]

Why not? There are plenty of comments. What else are we going to comment on? Those inane Josh posts? Prof. Volokh quoting (but not commenting on) a dozen judgments about anonymisation or AI hallucinations per week?

[Frank Drackman]

Like the NCAA "March Madness" (and soon to be CFB "December Madness") sometimes more isn't better.

[apedad]

And yet here you are.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you, and me and the usual suspects.

[Frank Drackman]

That old "Better to rule in Hell......."

[Martinned]

Since perpetual peace has now broken out in Palestine, maybe there is now bandwidth to discuss the (arguably) even worse conflict that's going on at the moment, in terms of the sheer scale and scope of war crimes that are being committed, the war in Sudan.

Because I know you all like it if I explain things from the US point of view, let me start there. You could simplify the chain of causation as follows:

- The US says/implies that the Gulf States cannot count on it for their security needs. Let's focus on military needs, mineral resources, and food.

- The UAE starts making friends with African regimes that have all three. In doing so, it has an obvious dislike for regimes that are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

- In Sudan, the old civil war in Darfur periodically blows up again, with the old Janjaweed militias having been reformed into the Rapid Support Forces.

- If you're MbN, the obvious move is to give the RSF lots of modern weapons, most of them Chinese made, but also US made, so that they can do genocide with drones and armored vehicles instead of horses and camels.

- If/when the US tells MbN to knock it off, MbN has no reason to give a crap. What is the US going to do? Be an even less reliable ally?

- The EU is definitely not going to tell the UAE to stop, because they've got their hands full with Russia. If our gas isn't going to come from Russia, it needs to come from the Gulf. (Primarily Qatar, but also the rest of the Gulf.) Norway has lots of gas, but it's not sufficient to meet Europe's needs, at least not until we finish installing a lot more renewables infrastructure.

- Result: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/30/world/sudan-massacres-rsf-rebels-darfur-intl

[Frank Drackman]

Just realized it was you guys who started South Africa, haven't you done enough to those poor people?

[Mr. Bumble]

Please don't bring up inconvenient truths about the Netherland's bloody and colonial past.

[Michael P]

The EU is definitely not going to tell the UAE to stop, because they've got their hands full with Russia.

So much for the theory that governments can do two things at once. Even my 11-year-old can walk while chewing gum, rubbing his stomach and patting his head.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can he do the Johnny Jellybean salute?

[Martinned]

So much for the theory that governments can do two things at once.

Governments can do two things at once, but they can't magically make gas appear out of thin air.

[David Nieporent]

They can generate plenty of hot air, though!

[Martinned]

True, but that doesn't heat my house.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the amount of hot air you generate your home heating needs should be minimal.

[Swede425]

Thanks for the tulips and windmills.
That's where you peaked.
Other will take it from here.

[Martinned]

Where do you think you got your democracy from? Hint: look at the flag of New York City.

[ThePublius]

Yea, based on Prince William's flag: "This flag became controversial in the Netherlands due to its usage by the pro-Nazi NSB in the years before and during World War II."

We got our democracy from descendants of English immigrants, not brutal colonizers like the Dutch.

New Amsterdam was not a democracy; it was an oligarchy controlled by the Dutch West India Company.

[Martinned]

Where do you think the English got their democracy from? And where do you think New York got theirs from?

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

https://history.nycourts.gov/about_period/flushing-remonstrance/

[Bob from Ohio]

English institutions existed prior to and independent of William being invited to come over. William was no democrat, he was a semi-king in the weird Dutch oligarchical system.

Nothing about American democracy comes form Holland.

[Martinned]

English institutions existed, but they didn't work. Hence a century of civil war. William III came over, having already governed in the Netherlands for 16 years within a parliamentary system, and created the system that the UK still had at the time of the Revolutionary War. The whole point of that setup was that it was based on the premise that the King could still get what he wanted while working with Parliament, so that he didn't have to go to war with it. Which is what American Presidents have also done, except the current one, who insists on working around his legislature even though his party, which is utterly obedient to him, controls both houses.

[Bob from Ohio]

Charles II, not William, was the first to get what he wanted while working with Parliament. James II was booted because his wife was Catholic and the bigots in England were afraid of the Pope taking over.

[Kazinski]

Who was William's Prime Minister?

He didn't have one, he and his wife Mary, who was joint Sovereign until she died in 1694, governed exactly the same way her father James II did, appointing and firing Minsters as they saw fit with no parliamentary approval.

And their wasn't even a UK at the time of William's reign. That wasn't established until 1707, 5 years after he was dead.

[Kazinski]

50 years before the Glorious Revolution was the English Civil War, where Parliament beheaded the Charles I, so you can hardly trace English democracy to the Dutch.

The issues that precipitated the Glorious Revolution Coup, had more to do with James II Catholicism, and that his daughter Mary, and Son in Law William 3, were both staunch protestants than concerns about Democracy.

James was using despotic means to try to re-impose Catholicism, including using Irish troops and alliance with the French, but it was his objective not his method that caused his overthrow.

It wasn't actually until late in the reign of his successor, Queen Anne was the principle established that the ministers had to have the approval of Parliament to govern, when Robert Harley, former speaker of the House, became her chief minister, and established the system that led to Walpole as the first Prime Minister 10 years later in 1721.

[Swede425]

LOL!
We got our democracy from Jan Freedomstra, Jan Van Der Liberty, and Jan Den Revolution?
Gosh! Thanks, Dutchie!

[Martinned]

You're welcome.

[Sarcastr0]

Sudan is the currently biggest humanitarian crisis in the world.

The UAE's been arming the RSF with arms the US sold them, according to the UK.
I'm not clear what the UAE's seeking by getting involved.

I do think this is another sign of the crumbling of the post-WW2 sovereignty-based paradigm. We're now seeing something more like the old age of empires vying for for regional influence.

Shitty for humanity worldwide, but the US no longer cares about that.
Someone should whisper to Trump he could come in and force a cease fire if he wanted to claim peacemaker bona fides.

[Martinned]

I'm not clear what the UAE's seeking by getting involved.

In short: military, resources, and food.

They already sent Sudanese militia to go fight in Yemen.

Sudan has lots of valuable resources in the ground that the UAE would like to have as part of its efforts to diversify its economy without becoming dependent on either the Americans or the Chinese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_industry_of_Sudan

And Sudan, despite the fact that we think of it as desert, grows a lot of food too. A lot more than the actual desert of UAE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Sudan

[John F. Carr]

Sudan is larger than Gaza and a much worse place to live. It's bad enough that some news is published even though it doesn't help either side in the usual American political disputes.

There's a Substack feed on the subject, Sudan War Monitor https://sudanwarmonitor.com.

[Bob from Ohio]

EU is definitely not going to tell the UAE to stop, because the UAE would laugh hysterically.

EU has no power to tell anyone anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and a belated Happy Guy Fawke's Day (Nov. 5).

[Martinned]

No Trump effigy this time, as far as I can tell.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/36-foot-donald-trump-effigy-flames-uk-festival/story?id=43243879

[apedad]

Child Exploitation Enterprise, Supporting Terrorists, Producing and Distributing Child Pornography, and Other Crimes

A federal grand jury in the District of Arizona has returned a 29-count superseding indictment against Baron Cain Martin, known online as “Convict” (among other monikers), 21, of Tucson, Arizona. The superseding indictment charges Martin with participating in a child exploitation enterprise, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, conspiring to kill, kidnap or maim persons in a foreign country, producing child pornography (five counts), distributing child pornography (11 counts), coercing and enticing minors to engage in sexual activity (three counts), cyberstalking (three counts), animal crushing and distribution of animal crush videos, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Martin has been in federal custody since his arrest on federal charges on December 11, 2024.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/arizona-leader-violent-extremist-network-764-charged-running-child-exploitation-enterprise

He's 21 years old?!?

Seems like a lot of work.

Couldn't he have just run a couple of meth labs instead?

[Martinned]

Yes, isn't rape of minors terrible? Someone should really investigate!

[Frank Drackman]

Start with your Kingie-Wingie

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Yes, isn't rape of minors terrible? Someone should really investigate!

Seems quite a few investigations on the European continent were curtailed since the investigations would offend a certain ethnic group.

[Martinned]

Tell me more about Epstein.

[Joe_dallas]

you mean Bill Clinton and prince andrew?

Or are you choosing to ignore the ME ethnic groups raping children?

[Martinned]

That's not a lot more. Tell me who, in the US, of similar prominence to Andrew Windsor, suffered any consequences whatsoever due to being associated with Epstein.

[Joe_dallas]

Still choosing to avoid discussing the failure to conduct timely investigations of the raping of children by ME immigrants in the UK and other raping of children by ME groups in Europe. Why? inconvenient fact?

[Darth Buckeye]

Will he be the next Progressive Democrat to run for high office?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, it's been 24 hours, can I speak ill of Dick Chaney???
1: his daughter Liz (his and Lynne's first child) was born 9 months and 2 days(July 28, 1966) after the US ended draft deferments for Married Men without children.
I'll give Dick this much, he didn't waste any time.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

As the Kids today say,
"here's the "Deets"

Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.
May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, “available immediately for military service.”

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, “deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family,” because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

[Krayt]

I knew a guy who got out of the Vietnam draft by getting braces. He went down to get some, they said come back next month. He said his physical was tomorrow, they squoze him in that afternoon.

This guy was a mathematician who later worked on DOD stuff in parts of his career, so he was no pacifist.

[not guilty]

Statues of warriors often portray them bearing their weapons. Will a statue commemorating Dick Cheney's Vietnam era escapades show him proudly displaying his erection?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sorry to disappoint you, but probably not.

You'll have to commission one yourself, assuming you haven't already.

[Stephen Lathrop]

One year to go before mid-term election day. Maybe 6 months or less, before serious judicial focus on election tampering becomes necessary. Still no sign of proactive legal advocacy to get ahead of what threatens to be sudden and late-breaking Trump/MAGA moves to corrupt the election. So far, just lots of fatuous expressions from D politicians about how strong the system is, and cheerful promises to fight for democracy.

[ThePublius]

Are you kidding? Election tampering and election fraud are the province of the Democrats, not Republicans. Just look at how widespread it is that illegal immigrants are registered to vote, and do vote; at ballot harvesting; and at opposition to voter ID. Not to mention the scandalous gerrymandering. Take Massachusetts, for example. Nearly 40% of voters voted Republican in the last presidential election. Yet there's not a single Republican in our congressional delegation. And this is so for many, many states.

[Martinned]

Election tampering and election fraud are the province of the Democrats, not Republicans.

If you keep saying that, eventually you might start to believe it. No one else will, but it's still a way to deal with your own cognitive dissonance, and that's worth something too.

[ThePublius]

Another throw-away retort from Martinned.

[DDHarriman]

Martinned is a guy who lives under a literal king and has a literal State church.

[Martinned]

I do not, in fact, have a State Church. That also has nothing to do with anything.

Is there a reason why you're trying to move the goalposts away from election tampering by far right parties all over the world?

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 27 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I do not, in fact, have a State Church.

Correct - you dont have a state church since you are not a state

[Martinned]

Glad to see we agree! I'm sure DDHarriman will issue a correction any moment now.

[jb]

"Just look at how widespread it is that illegal immigrants are registered to vote, and do vote"

Oh, do tell us. How widespread is it?

"Not to mention the scandalous gerrymandering. Take Massachusetts, for example. Nearly 40% of voters voted Republican in the last presidential election. Yet there's not a single Republican in our congressional delegation. And this is so for many, many states"

There's a lot of gerrymandering going on by both parties, but you managed to pick the worst possible example. Massachusetts is an interesting case where the Democrat/Republican split is spread relatively evenly across the entire state, so it's actually not possible to draw a map with any Republican reps:

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/elj.2018.0537

I'd encourage you to do a little more research into these topics instead of blindly repeating talking points that make you feel good about your political team.

[Darth Buckeye]

Oh, you mean like the millions of ballots that will be mailed out to every registered voter in California? Whether requested or not. Using old voter registration lists. And with vote collection boxes that are totally unsupervised.

States that send out ballots without requests: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. The only state on this list that is majority Republican is Utah with its 4 seats.

California will soon be sending 43 Democrats and 9 Republicans to Congress.
Colorado: 4 Dems and 4 Reps
Hawaii: 2 Dems and 0 Reps
Nevada: 3 Dems and 1 Reps
Oregon: 5 Dems and 1 Reps
Utah: 0 Dems and 4 Reps
Vermont: 1 Dem and 0 Reps
Washington: 8 Dems and 2 Reps

Utah is being forced by a court to change its districts. Who knows, after the next election it may look like this:
California: 50 Dems and 2 Reps
Colorado: 8 Dems and 0 Reps
Hawaii: 2 Dems and 0 Reps
Nevada: 4 Dems and 0 Reps
Oregon: 6 Dems and 0 Reps
Utah: 0 Dems and 4 Reps
Vermont: 1 Dem and 0 Reps
Washington: 8 Dems and 0 Reps

[David Nieporent]

Oh, you mean like the millions of ballots that will be mailed out to every registered voter in California?

Wait, each voter gets millions of ballots? No wonder it takes so long to count them!

[jb]

"Utah is being forced by a court to change its districts"

Notably, by the state courts because the voters of Utah chose to have an independent redistricting process that the Republican legislature just ignored so that they could gerrymander the maps and make sure there wasn't a Democratic representative.

[apedad]

House Republican Says GOP Lost Big on Tuesday Because Its Voters ‘Are Happy With What’s Happening’

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) offered a novel explanation for why her party was roundly defeated in races across the country on Tuesday: Republican voters were simply too happy with the status quo to be bothered to vote.

Yeah, well, let me give you the other side of that story, is voter turnout from Republicans was not high. Not high at all. But I think part of that reason is because Republicans, for the most part, are happy with what’s happening. The border’s closed, crime is down, inflation under Biden used to be nine percent. It’s now down to three percent. Interest rates are down, mortgages down…

I shop at the same grocery stores everybody else does. Is there more work that needs to be done? Absolutely, there is. That’s why in the working families tax cut, we did just that. We voted not to raise everybody’s taxes. Very different than what the Democrats did. So, I think there’s two sides of the coin that you have to take a look at. What is incumbent on us is we must make sure that we get our voters to turn out like they did in the election year. No question.

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/house-republican-says-gop-lost-big-on-tuesday-because-its-voters-are-happy-with-whats-happening/

Yeah, keep on living in denial.

[ThePublius]

What are you quoting and what are you saying? Quotation marks would help.

[DDHarriman]

He probably used html tags, and then edited his comment. The commenting software strips html tags on the edit.

[Life of Brian]

It's annoying for sure. I try to always copy before posting, so if I did goof something I can just paste the properly-tagged version back in and edit that. (That also saves your bacon if the page stealth logs you out while you're posting.)

[Sarcastr0]

Oh thank goodness, the posting police are here to not click on links and complain about it!

[Life of Brian]

I wonder who first came up with the notion that just providing a link somehow obligates the reader to click on it and read its contents to attempt to sort out how that content might relate to the poorly-written comment linking to it. It's really turning into a perverse debate tactic for the terminally lazy and/or cagey.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro at one point developed an annoying habit of pasting URLs that he thought supported his point (or perhaps refuted yours) into the reply box. No commentary, no explanation of why the thought the link was relevant, just a link. It's like, am I supposed to click on that?

[DDHarriman]

You're supposed to read his mind for the argument he's trying to make, click his link, read the entire thing, evaluate it, analyze it, compare and contrast your first impressions to your mind reading of Sarcastr0, then of course change your mind and concede the point.

Sarcastr0 is pretty good at this debating and rhetoric thing.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, and NG's tiresome "here's a 93-page opinion I agree with -- write a brief-length analysis explaining what's wrong with it or I win" shtick.

[not guilty]

LoB, it is not those of us who actually read what we comment on who are "terminally lazy and/or cagey."

Every accusation is a confession.

[Bwaaah]

I once clicked on one of those Sarcastr0-provided links to see if there was a there there. There wasn't. And God whispered to me, "You feel like a schmuck now, don't you?"

[not guilty]

"I wonder who first came up with the notion that just providing a link somehow obligates the reader to click on it and read its contents to attempt to sort out how that content might relate to the poorly-written comment linking to it. It's really turning into a perverse debate tactic for the terminally lazy and/or cagey."

Commenting on materials that he hasn't actually read seems to be a sore spot for Life of Birdbrain, for as Thomas Gray wrote in his 1742 poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College, "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

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

[Life of Brian]

Is it really that novel of a notion that dissatisfied voters are more motivated to get out and vote for change? It seems like a pretty basic understanding from a quick look, e.g. here:

“The reason the midterms don't usually go the way of the party that's in power is because their supporters are satisfied, and so they stay home,” Brennan says. “And the people who are unhappy and riled up are the ones who turn out during the midterms.”

[apedad]

Who recently said these lines?

"It's important to respond immediately to every local incident if they arise, and they do."

"Provocations and attempts to incite discord between people must be stopped, given that the provocateurs themselves are typically based abroad: sponsored, financed, and directed by foreign intelligence services."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff / Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
Russian President Putin

[apedad]

Anti-LGBTQ+ hate pastor Joel Webbon believes the reason for GOP losses is simple: women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

"You can save your country or you can allow women to vote. But you cannot do both." (From X)

Previously, Webbon spoke of “degenerate” gays, saying that death, as a “maximum penalty,” would act as a deterrent to homosexuality. He also heartily agreed with a guest that 17% of gay men regularly eat feces.

Webbon has also previously said that Black civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. is in Hell and that racist, slave-owning Confederate leaders are in Heaven.

Hey, if this is G*d's word then count me in!!!

[Frank Drackman]

You just described to a "T" the policies of NYC's newest "Hizzonner"'s native Uganda.
Maybe he can become Mayor of Kampala when he's deported.

Frank

[apedad]

I was actually in Kampala (and Entebbe Airport) in the mid 90s as part of Operation Support Hope, a 1994 United States military effort to provide immediate relief for the refugees of the Rwandan genocide.

Had one of the best steak dinners ever - not 100% sure but I don't think it was human.

[DDHarriman]

Thanks for sharing your travel blog with us.

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard you can still see the bullet holes at the Airport from "Operation Thunderbolt" (July 4, 1976).

[apedad]

They were there in 1994.

Don't know about now.

[Martinned]

Technically he's not wrong. (Young) women voted for Democratic candidates in staggering numbers.

https://fortune.com/2025/11/05/election-2025-women-voters-mamdani-spanberger-sherrill-nyc/

[Krayt]

Webbon spoke of “degenerate” gays, saying that death, as a “maximum penalty,” would act as a deterrent to homosexuality.

Man knows his Bible. "Degenerate" is such a weak word. I think the Bible uses "abomination".

We had to wait until the NT for commentary on women though.

Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature

Hot! So wrong, so very wrong!

[grb]

Now do usury. You'll find a lot more in the Bible to quote....

[Bob from Ohio]

Am I supposed to know who Joel Webbon is? Or care what he says?

[Armchair]

Apparently the Democrats have deciding shutting down the government is a winning strategy.

Headlines from The Hill newspaper this morning.

One: Democrats’ confidence in shutdown strategy soars after election sweep
Two: Democrats dig in on shutdown
Three: Senate Dem divide emerges as progressives warn against ending shutdown
Four: Hard-line Democrats lean in to ObamaCare fight after Tuesday sweep

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/shutdown-forever-3.php

Well, I suppose winning elections means cutting food stamps.

[Longtobefree]

Common thread in all those headlines:
It is about democrat politicians' power, not helping the voters (and non-citizens).

[Martinned]

Wait, who do you think is shutting down the government? And is it by any chance the party that has a majority in both houses of Congress while also holding the White House?

[Armchair]

"Wait, who do you think is shutting down the government?"
Democrats. The GOP has passed a clean funding bill in the House. They have a majority supporting it in the Senate.

A minority Democratic filibuster is stopping the government from being funded. At Biden levels. This is a Democrat shutdown

[David Nieporent]

Once again: if the cooperation of two sets of people is needed to accomplish a goal, then the failure to cooperate is by definition on both sides. Would the government reopen if the Dems decided to adopt the GOP position? Yes. Would the government reopen if the GOP decided to adopt the Democratic position? Also yes. Would the government reopen if the GOP and Dems reached a compromise that adopted some of each side's positions? Also again yes. If neither side is moving, then each side is responsible for that.

(The MAGA argument is, in essence, "There are more of us, so why should we have to give in?" But that's a rhetorical argument, not a logical one.)

[Armchair]

Once again...no.

If one side is making completely unreasonable demands as a "condition"...it is on them. It's not "both sides" nonsense. If your child demands a pony in order for her to go to school today...that's unreasonable. She is the one at fault.

Asking for a trillion dollars in spending as a condition to open the government at Democratic funding levels for 2-3 weeks now is unreasonable. It's just nuts. Such an unreasonable demand means the Democrats aren't serious, and want this shutdown.

[Sarcastr0]

Your logic here is Armchair no likey the Dems, so they're at fault?

You get your own subjective opinion, but insisting everyone go along with you isn't a viable argument.

That's why even though you've been posting up a storm for this past month that Dems are to blame for the shutdown, all polling is that the American People aren't going along with you.

[David Nieporent]

Asking for a trillion dollars in spending as a condition to open the government at Democratic funding levels for 2-3 weeks now is unreasonable.

How about half a trillion? Or a quarter of a trillion? Or $100 billion? Has the GOP offered any of those? Has it offered anything? Or just issued an ultimatum?

If your child demands a pony in order for her to go to school today...that's unreasonable. She is the one at fault.

I mean, I don't negotiate with my kids about whether they'll go to school, so it's a really terrible analogy, but quite revealing. You think the relationship here is parent-child rather than equals.

[Armchair]

The GOP has a majority in the House, in the Senate, and the Presidency. It's is not a relationship of "equals".

OK, new deal. The GOP's deal is that they demand that all federal spending California to California, New York, and Maryland be cut off. They'll "compromise" with a CR.

[David Nieporent]

The GOP has a majority in the House, in the Senate, and the Presidency. It's is not a relationship of "equals".

Unless the GOP is willing to nuke the filibuster, having a majority does not allow the bill to be passed and is thus irrelevant; the GOP has no kite power than the Dems do.

[David Nieporent]

no *more* power. Weird autocorrect.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Has it offered anything? Or just issued an ultimatum?"

What ultimatum? It has offered a clean CR without demanding further concessions. Maybe you're right, and it should take the clean CR off the table and start requiring funding cuts, or maybe a shutdown of the Department of Ed, in order to re-open the government. If they're taking a political hit, they should get something out of it.

But for moral hazard reasons, neither party should ever concede anything in exchange for a clean CR.

[David Nieporent]

What ultimatum?

“Pass this or nothing.”

[Life of Brian]

Would the government reopen if the Dems decided to adopt the GOP position? Yes. Would the government reopen if the GOP decided to adopt the Democratic position? Also yes. Would the government reopen if the GOP and Dems reached a compromise that adopted some of each side's positions? Also again yes.

The problem is that you're characterizing this as some sort of clean-slate "some of mine, and some of yours" negotiation, when in reality the CR literally just continues the status quo while the parties actually negotiate give-and-take for the budget cycle going forward. The Dems have poor leverage in the actual negotiations, so they're using the blunt-instrument leverage they have here as a substitute. Really uncomplicated.

[Life of Brian]

Oops -- first para is Nieporent quote.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I guess I don't disagree with your general description (except for neglecting to address the bad faith rescissions by the GOP the last time the parties had reached a deal); I just disagree that this is a "problem" for my argument. There is neither a law nor even a Senate rule that mandates that the only lawful outcome of this process is continuing the status quo. That's just the outcome that the GOP wants. But the Dems are not obligated to forfeit the leverage they have when they have it just because the GOP wants it to be otherwise.

[Life of Brian]

I'm not really sure what you were responding to, since I didn't say anything at all about "lawful outcomes," "rules," or "obligations to forfeit leverage." This discussion as I read it is all about which side is being more unreasonable, and it seems to me the side demanding a departure from the status quo in order to continue funding governmental operations is at least presumptively the more-unreasonable one.

[David Nieporent]

Why is the status quo inherently — or "presumptively" — more reasonable? Other than that you happen to like it better?

[Life of Brian]

What a weird question. The status quo is the state of affairs the sides had last agreed on. A new set of demands by one side is by definition not that.

[jb]

What does "at Biden levels" mean? With regards to the issue that the Democrats are asking for more spending on, the CR does not return Medicaid spending to Biden levels. That is the whole essence of the dispute.

[Armchair]

"What does "at Biden levels" mean?"

Since all of last year was also a CR, this CR would be a continuation of the budget passed in Fiscal Year 2024. Generally speaking, the vast majority of Democrats voted for this, while a majority of Republicans voted against it (At least the second minibus package), while Biden signed it. The spending levels as a CR are above where the GOP would like them to be.

[jb]

What are the spending levels the GOP would like? Have they agreed on a budget?

And if the spending levels are the same in the CR as under Biden, what's your understanding of the Democratic request? (And sorry, I misspoke earlier and mentioned Medicaid rather than health insurance premium tax credits.)

[David Nieporent]

Apparently the Democrats have deciding shutting down the government is a winning strategy.

So has Trump. (I mean, he agrees that it's a winning strategy for Dems.) He has been railing even harder against the shutdown since the election.

[ReaderY]

Daily open threads?

[Life of Brian]

Looks that way. I wondered what change was afoot when yesterday's didn't say "Wednesday" in front. It'll be interesting to see how a daily clean slate will affect the multi-day extended discussions in the old format. Guessing it will depress it a least a bit since at least some bandwidth will go to chasing the day's new butterflies.

[Armchair]

In other news, Mamdani's election has prompted good news...for Florida.

Real estate is surging in Florida as NYC residents seek to buy property there and flee NYC. Reports are that Mamdani's election will cost NYC over 10 Billion in GDP.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/nyc-election-fears-drive-100m-florida-real-estate-surge-nervous-new-yorkers-flee-south

[Martinned]

Well yes. If a million New Yorkers are moving to Florida, I can see how that would push up real estate prices.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe, unlike your Shithole of a Country the housing supply in Florida isn't "Fixed"
and during Hurricane Season it's often "Fluid"

Frank

[Krayt]

I hear lots of windy, too.

Anyway, they best get a move on before the "it's not a Ponzi scheme!" thieves start trying to levy exit taxes.

[jb]

Uhh, the line about costing NYC $10B in GDP is completely made up by you as far as I can tell. The article correctly reports that Mamadani's proposals would cost $10B in government spending, but what effect that would have on GDP would obviously depend on the effects of the policies.

[Armchair]

"A more recent analysis by The Times reported that independent estimates around Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani’s overall platform may cost New York City’s economy $10 billion annually."

[jb]

Rather than lifting quotes and adding words like "GDP" you should try reading the underlying Times article to see what it's actually talking about:

"The democratic socialist has pledged to fund the agenda, estimated by his campaign at roughly $10 billion a year, by raising taxes on businesses and the top 1 per cent of earners."

[Martinned]

Today in "fighting antisemitism"-news, Josh's friends at Heritage:

[Heritage President Kevin] Roberts’s speechwriter, Evan Myers, suggested that Heritage’s attempts to address accusations of antisemitism would eventually mean he would be required to attend a Shabbat dinner, which he said would conflict with his faith.

The whole story is a mess. This bit is just the weirdest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/06/heritage-foundation-tucker-carlson/

[David Nieporent]

It was doubly bizarre, because (1) as details show, nobody was trying to "require" him to do any such thing; and (2) it would not in fact conflict with his faith.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The world is getting smaller. Should a Western teacher use caution before sharing a video like this, which appears to contain Eastern swastikas?

Trigger warning? Anything?

[Krayt]

Most people are aware Indians use those runic letters for other reasons, who cares some pipsqueak country on the other side of the world abused it for a decade or so.

For that matter, I knew a couple who literally named their kid Aryan.

[Frank Drackman]

I know a country that's called that.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's a good opportunity for the teacher to explain to students that symbols have context. In some contexts swastikas are evil, in others benign. It's an opportunity for education in critical thinking. Call me old-fashioned, but that is what teachers are supposed to do.

[Bwaaah]

Just adding to the comments in response to your remarks yesterday about the Civil Rights Act...

How dare you! (lol)

[David Nieporent]

There's a war memorial outside Balmoral (the Royal estate in Scotland) which contains swastikas. But it was a WWI memorial, and erected pre-Hitler. They simply put up a plaque saying (paraphrased) "Swastikas were an ancient Indian symbol. We did this before the Nazis ruined them for everyone."

[ThePublius]

It's also a Buddhist symbol: "In Buddhism, the swastika is an ancient symbol of auspiciousness, good fortune, and the footprints or heart of the Buddha."

[Paladin_44]

You see them all over the place in Nepal.

[Kazinski]

Pre WW2 they had swastikas on almost every Arizona Highway sign.

Here is an example from 1927:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_2_1927.jpg

[Bored Lawyer]

Isn't it a symbol of Native American tribes in Arizona?

[Kazinski]

Not in 1927, by then it was straight up cultural appropriation.

Same as the Nazis.

Once White people get their hands on something it ruins it for everyone.

If you doubt me:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gary+oldman+dreadlocks+character&oq=garry+oldman+dreds&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8#vhid=Jj8ZpInGEjqlZM&vssid=_TYINaaivF_S2qtsPzYDLwQU_23

[dwb68]

Conventional wisdom was that after the elections and the Dems notched a win, the government would reopen. Instead, the progressives have been emboldened. I don't see a deal in sight.

There should be no filibuster for continuing resolutions.

[grb]

Hey - the solution's there for everyone to see : All Trump has to do is extend the healthcare credits for ordinary working Americans just like he did with the tax cuts for his millionaire & billionaire buddies. You'll object that Trump doesn't give the slightest damn about working Americans except as dupes, rubes, & marks - which is true. But even our cognitively-impaired president now see the shutdown fiasco is affecting him personally.

And that makes all the difference in the world.....

[David Nieporent]

But even our cognitively-impaired president now see the shutdown fiasco is affecting him personally.

But his response isn't to advocate compromise; it's to try to bully the senate into abolishing the filibuster.

[dwb68]

The government redistributing resources does not create new ones, or make the existing ones cheaper. Government redistribution generally makes goods and services more expensive. Now... if you want to incentivize universities to graduate more doctors, which will drive down the cost of health care, I'd be on board with that.

[dwb68]

Partisan gerrymandering is coming back to the court very soon. California prop 50 will be challenged. I expect a mirror challenge to Texas. The circuits will split, and to the SC it goes.

It will be interesting what Gorsuch has to say about the "one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power" partisan gerrymandering causes. No party will ever give it up.

[John F. Carr]

Republicans have already sued California alleging racial discrimination,

[grb]

dwb68 : "Partisan gerrymandering is coming back to the court very soon"

A 2021 congressional measure known as the "For the People Act" required all states establish independent redistricting commissions. It would have virtually eliminated gerrymandering. The bill passed the House with all Democrats but one supporting it. Every Republicans voted against it minus two absences. It didn't even advance in the Senate.

Meanwhile, our (let's be plain) Republican SCOUS has consistently rejected challenges to partisan gerrymandering. Whether they would be consistent with a new "Trump-benefits" case is another story altogether.

[David Nieporent]

Unfortunately, leftists decided to throw every single item on their wishlist into the For the People Act, which made it a poison pill.

[Martinned]

There used to be a commenter here called noscitur a sociis. Here is example 10484 of Trumpists making friends with the German neo-Nazi party.

Alex Bruesewitz, an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, told leaders of the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD — a party labeled extremist by German authorities — that he sees them as “bold visionaries” shaping the country’s future.

Speaking to a room packed with AfD parliamentarians and supporters in Berlin on Wednesday night, Bruesewitz declared that MAGA conservatives and members of Germany’s rising far right are united in a common fight along with other nationalist forces around the world against “Marxists” and “globalists” that he framed as “a spiritual war for the soul of our nations.”

Bruesewitz, a social media guru credited with helping Trump return to the White House, is now a senior adviser to Never Surrender, Trump’s leadership political action committee. His speech to AfD parliamentarians comes at a time when German far-right figures are increasingly looking for legitimacy and support from MAGA Republicans in the U.S., particularly for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-ally-alex-bruesewitz-to-germanys-afd-we-are-in-this-together/

[DDHarriman]

Oh my we surely must take the proclamations and judgements of deranged lefty lunatics as gospel!

When they say AfD is a NAZI party THEY ARE.
When they say Azov is not NAZI even though they self identify as Nazis and have NAZI tattoos and wave NAZI flags, THEY ARE NOT NAZIS.

[Martinned]

I'm not even making you take the literal gospel as gospel. (Nor am I a "lefty" or a "lunatic".) So I really don't know WTF you're talking about.

On the remote chance that you would like to educate yourself, all 500+ pages of the rapport of the Verfassungsschutz is here: https://assets.cicero.de/2025-05/Geheimgutachten_Teil%20A.pdf

And the judgment of the Oberverwaltungsgericht NRW upholding the decision to formally investigate the AfD is here: https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/ovgs/ovg_nrw/j2024/5_A_1218_22_Urteil_20240513.html

[Bob from Ohio]

Regime organs attack opposition party to justify banning. Seems legit!

[M L]

I don't know anything about German politics, but . . . I'm against Marxists and globalists, too.

Is there something wrong with that, per se? Let me guess - You're going to tell us that Marxists and globalists don't exist? Or, that opposition to them can't exist without also being Nazism?

[Sarcastr0]

(((Marxists and globalists))).

[M L]

Sorry, but Marxism, and globalism, are real things that exist. They are real, bad ideologies.

Your attempt to conflate them with an ethnic group, and to deny their existence as (bad) ideas, is just running cover for them (at best). And actually pretty bigoted. There are of course many great Jewish people who are not Marxists or globalists. And many non-Jewish people who are.

[Bob from Ohio]

The most prominent Marxist in the US is Muslim and just got elected in NYC.

[M L]

Exactly.

[Sarcastr0]

They are real. That's what makes them such an effective dog whistles for The Jews.

Which way are you gonna bet for AfD?

[Darth Buckeye]

I was very surprised to hear my wife (who is very progressive and generally votes for Democratic Party candidates) this morning blame the Democrats for the shutdown. Most of what I am reading shows that slightly more people blame the Republicans.

I am a federal employee on furlough and I would very much like to get back to work. I just signed up to work on some document review projects while the shutdown goes on. But I informed potential employers that I am subject to returning to work within 4 hours of the end of the shutdown.

[Mr. Bumble]

This just in:
Nancy Pelosi announces she will not seek re-election.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is she still alive? Then again, after Biden, I guess it doesn't matter.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Nancy Pelosi announces she will not seek re-election"

These days when an elderly politician leaves the stage willingly everyone should applaud - regardless of party.

[Bored Lawyer]

A story I often tell. Robert Byrd, who was elected senator like six or seven times, was asked near the end of his life why he didn't retire for a younger man.
"I thought about doing that. But then someone told me that Ninety is the New Eighty. So I decided to run for another term."

[loki13]

Today, in As The Halligan Turns!

As the sands through an hourglass, so to are the days that this administration lies…

(Credit original analysis to emtywheel)

1. Pam Bondi stated that after review of the Grand Jury proceedings she ratified the conduct of Halligan on Oct. 31.

2. On the same day, the DOJ provided a package that included the transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings as required by Court Order.

3. On November 4, the Court ordered the DOJ to prove the actual complete GJ transcript- as the material they provided only had the examination by Halligan of one witness for the second part of the proceedings and did not include any of her statements to the GJ, instructions, or any of the entire first part that resulted in the no bill (that she also signed and presented).

4. In a filing in November 5-

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.158.0.pdf

The DOJ states that when it received the Court’s Order of November 4, it immediately obtained the recording of the proceeding and asked for a transcription of the proceeding in full- which it HAD NOT DONE BEFORE.

So to review-
Pam Bondi asserted that she ratified the conduct of Halligan based on her review of the Grand Jury proceedings on October 31. On November 5, the DOJ asserted it never asked for or had the recording or transcript of the proceedings until November 4. And Halligan was the only person in the room.

They lie. Always.

[grb]

And very often, clumsy stupid obvious lies.....

[David Nieporent]

Very often? Don't you mean 100% of the time?

[loki13]

You know, DMN, I always wonder about the people I’ve blocked (because they are trolls, bigots, credulously repost known lies and don’t bother correcting them, or are repeatedly and gratuitously obnoxious). Usually, over time, they stop responding to my posts knowing they won’t get a rise or response out of me. But some don’t!

Which is completely okay. I’m sure that they feel they have something important to say. Anyway, I bothered unblocking one of those fine folks here to see if things had changed.

Let’s see-
1. If you are ratifying someone’s conduct after a review of the proceedings, you actually need to … review the proceedings. Not just ask them, “Did you do a good job.” Especially if you said you reviewed the proceedings. It has a different meaning than, “I talked to the person whose conduct I am ratifying.”

2. I happened upon this analysis from a trusted legal source. That source noted that it was first raised by the person I noted. I verified the actual documents and dates myself, and linked to the most important one so you can check it out.

Then, and I know this sounds insane to people who lack integrity- I made sure to credit the person who actually spotted the issue first because I don’t steal credit for that sort of thing.

I understand that integrity isn’t really valued by fans of this administration, but I still practice it.

Anyway, my review of that comment ratified my original decision to block! However, because I can’t retroactively unread what I read I’ll just do it again.

[Life of Brian]

You're literally telling someone else your response to my comment. Wonder what made Nieporent draw the short straw?

Take-aways:
1. Some people never outgrow high school, I guess.
2. Apparently my point--that nobody is making any sort of a case for a required standard of review--actually struck a nerve.
3. Your "rebuttal" just keeps banging the same pots and pans from your original post and doesn't actually claim there's a requirement to review every last word of the grand jury proceeding, much less provide any support for that.

It's pretty tempting to come away from that with the idea that this is the angle Team Comey really can't work around, so they just have to make some halfhearted noise about it to try to feel better. Guess we'll see!

[TwelveInchPianist]

LoB, please. The adults are talking.

[Life of Brian]

I guess that holds together as long as Bondi couldn't have just... oh, I don't know, talked to Halligan about what happened? She didn't specify what she reviewed, and I haven't heard anyone argue that reviewing a word-for-word transcript of the entire proceeding is required.

(Credit original analysis to emtywheel)

Grand Poobah Loki cribs legal "analyses" from acti-journalists with no legal background? I'm actually, sincerely, shocked.

[David Nieporent]

Grand Poobah Loki cribs legal "analyses" from acti-journalists with no legal background? I'm actually, sincerely, shocked.

Um, no. He didn't take any legal analysis from her; just a factual recitation.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, so he was lying when he said it was an analysis?

[Estragon]

“anyone argue that reviewing a word-for-word transcript of the entire proceeding is required”

Well didn’t one person argue that? On October 28?

“Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts. In camera review is appropriate given the secrecy requirements applicable to grand jury proceedings.”

[Life of Brian]

Nope.

What you quoted is not an argument that Bondi had to review every word of the transcript of the grand jury proceeding to ratify Halligan's conduct before the grand jury. It's an order to provide every word of it to the judge, for her private review.

Nor does the timing even work: the October 28 order by definition couldn't have had anything to do with Bondi's October 31 ratification.

[Estragon]

I think the point there is more along the lines of why aren’t they complying with court orders. Anytime a judge has to reiterate that complete means complete I’m not sure you’re doing your best.

I take it that what you are saying is that Bondi could “ratify” Ms Halligan’s conduct on the basis of anything or nothing at all— you might or might not be right about that.

But when Ms Bondi says “based on my review of grand jury proceedings” one wonders if she was intending to be forthright that that “review” included only the extremely limited statements outlined above and, I guess, whatever she heard secondhand from Ms. Halligan— which must be true because they hadn’t even ordered the full transcripts on 10/31 despite the order on 10/28. In another universe one might wonder about Ms. Bondi’s ethical exposure, but who am I kidding?

[Estragon]

And let me just add here that if you are correct, and Ms Bondi conducted a cursory— or even nonexistent— review because she was not required to do anything more, “ratifying” Ms Halligan’s actions without even being clear as to what they were strikes me as insanely risky! Especially given Ms Halligan’s lack of experience and familiarity with grand jury rules.

[Life of Brian]

cursory— or even nonexistent— review

No need to go overboard. The contention on the table here is that Bondi somehow was obligated to review not only the standard transcript provided by the court reporter containing the witness testimony that the grand jury heard and evaluated in their decision to indict, but the entire recording of every word spoken from the beginning to the end of the proceeding, including the part related to the charge for which the GJ opted not to indict.

Neither the judge nor the talking heads here have 1) said that's actually required for Bondi to ratify Halligan's conduct related to the actual indicted charges, 2) provided any legal support for it being required, or 3) explained why it would or could matter.

“ratifying” Ms Halligan’s actions without even being clear as to what they were strikes me as insanely risky!

Factoring in what I said above, "risky" in what sense?

[Estragon]

How can the conduct be meaningfully “ratified” if you’re not even familiar with how Halligan described the law to the grand jury, for example? You know she’s never done one of these before— right?

As for “risky” well, it used to be things like this could get lawyers in hot water. James alludes to FRCP 6 in one of her filings.

Bondi is in a tough place here. I imagine the calculus is coming around to “I’m in too deep to stop now.” I guarantee you in their heart of hearts Blanche and Bondi just want these Comey and James cases to go away in a way that they wouldn’t be blamed— which is why they put Halligan in charge of them. But needs must! All these people are going to need pardons, in the unlikely event the regime is willing to temporarily cede power when the time comes.

[Life of Brian]

if you’re not even familiar with how Halligan described the law to the grand jury, for example

What basis do you have to believe that the presiding judge would have on a lark just decided to not give the grand jury charge and somehow allowed Halligan to give it instead?

As for “risky” well, it used to be things like this could get lawyers in hot water. James alludes to FRCP 6 in one of her filings.

Again, things like what? And "hot water" for what? FRCP 6 concerns the grand jury in general, so generally alluding to it says nothing in particular.

I understand the red-meat media is in ominous murmurings mode, but you need something more concrete than that.

Bondi is in a tough place here.

Again, outside of hopeful media headlines, what is this "tough place"?

[David Nieporent]

What basis do you have to believe that the presiding judge would have on a lark just decided to not give the grand jury charge and somehow allowed Halligan to give it instead?

Um, because that's not how grand juries work? Judges swear in grand juries and explain their legal duties (in the abstract, not about a specific case). The prosecutor acts as the legal advisor to the grand jury, presenting the desired charges and explaining what they need to find to issue an indictment. The judge plays no role in that. Were you really unaware of that fundamental issue about the nature of grand juries?

[not guilty]

Is anyone surprised that Life of Birdbrain thinks that commenting on a matter without having read original source materials -- as Pam (Bottle) Blondie did with "ratifying" Lindsey Hooligan's work -- is acceptable?

[Life of Brian]

Speaking of unsurprising, yet another cranky anklebiter--this one professing to have a rich background in the subject--has entered the chat bringing absolutely nothing of substance to support the contention that Bondi was required to listen to the entire tape of the entire proceeding.

[DDHarriman]

Texas is not doing partisan redistricting they are redistricting due to Democrat lawsuits. Democrats are the ones redistricting solely for partisan gain.

Case closed. As always, Democrat accusations are projection. They are evil.

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1986094655570649508

Irrefutable.

[jb]

LOL, that's not redistricting in response to Democratic lawsuits. That's redistricting because the Fifth Circuit told them they could ignore the result of those previous lawsuits.

And by the way, Texas has subsequently claimed in Court that the gerrymander has nothing to do with any of this and is purely partisan. So your "irrefutable" argument has been refuted by Texas.

[Krayt]

Daily threads now? Well, why not?

7-11 kept introducing larger and larger cups. When asked why, they said, "Because people kept buying 'em!"

It's also a neat twist on normal discussion forums, like slashdot, because, instead of single threads on a topic, which grow large and unwieldly, and people start shying away when it gets to 40 or 120 pages, here they just fall into disrepair worse than an east wing, and are reborn anew.

[Krayt]

Coming January 2026, AM and PM threads. But what to name them? A play on meridian meridiem?

And breakfast literally means break your overnight fast. So what's breaking the congenital, chronic need to blabber after an overnight fast, ignoring some of the more prodigious commentators who are up at 3 AM, and I don't mean the Dutchman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5DZexDYyuU

AM Breakfast Thread, hmmmm, I know!

It's time for the AM break-fast and break-struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing thread!

[Bwaaah]

Holy shit! Is that Martinned in that video?

And what about intraday threads, maybe mid-afternoon, say, 3ish?

Maybe what's really going on is EV is trying to automate publishing of the Open Thread post, and for the sake of simplicity, it'll be daily? At least he won't have to worry about being tardy when it's his time to make the donuts. (Remember "tardy?" I think that's a school thing.)

[John F. Carr]

You probably can't say tardy any more. IEPy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Definitely not if the kid's late for special ed class.

In my day it was no longer acceptable to refer to a mistake as a "boner" but I had an elderly female teacher who didn't realize that.

[not guilty]

That brings to mind some late 20th century Nashville history. We had a political figure named Bill Boner, who served in Congress and later one term as mayor, who became a national embarrassment. He was under ethics investigation by the House of Representatives when he won election as mayor, with his midterm resignation rendering the investigation moot.

During his mayoral term, while still married to his third wife, Bill had an affair with the female head of his police detail, and later became engaged to a local nightclub singer, Traci Peel. She boasted to the afternoon newspaper that their passion could last "seven continuous hours." The couple appeared on Phil Donohue's nationally syndicated talk show, where Traci sang while Bill played the harmonica.

Nashville's weekly alternative newspaper still has an annual edition where they catalog locally known foibles, ironies and peculiarities, which is called the Boner Awards.

[John F. Carr]

Judge O'Connor permitted prosecutors to drop the criminal case against Boeing, rejecting Conspirator Paul Cassell's arguments on behalf of victims. He had some harsh words for prosecutors but in the end ordered

Because the Government has not acted with bad faith, has given more than mere conclusory reasons for its dismissal, and has satisfied its obligations under the CVRA, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29089563/united-states-v-the-boeing-company/?page=2

[David Nieporent]

The judge was bound by precedent to do so; the 5th circuit says that courts have to pretend that a prosecutor's decisions are in the public interest even if they manifestly are not, as long as the prosecutor wasn't literally corrupt.

The CVRA is a toothless procedural speedbump, not a substantive right, so it didn't help here.

[loki13]

Judge Ellis ruling from the bench in Chicago. A preliminary injunction is coming. Notable statement- the finding of fact that Bovino admitted he lied when he said he ordered tear gas because a rock hit him.

That was an admission of a lie. He wasn’t hit by anything. He ordered tear gas because he’s evil.

There were numerous other statements that were simply … not credible.

They lie. Always.

[loki13]

No stay pending appeal (from the bench).

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, DHS's Baghdad Bob (Tricia McLaughlin) was all over twitter after it happened claiming Bovino had been hit by a rock. That she said something may even be a stronger indicator than Trump saying something that it's false. (He's more likely to be batshit insane, of course, whereas she just lies.)

[John F. Carr]

This is the case. Nothing in writing yet.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/chicago-headline-club-v-noem/?page=2

[loki13]

Here’s an article (just published) about the bench ruling.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/11/06/judge-sara-ellis-operation-midway-blitz-tear-gas-deportation-campaign

[John F. Carr]

She recited the magic words "shocks the conscience" which elevate ordinary bad behavior to a constitutional violantion.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you find those words load-bearing to justify the injunction? I don't.

[Life of Brian]

Hard telling, since we don't yet have anything but the performative highlights.

[John F. Carr]

The injunction has been posted. The legal reasoning will follow within two weeks.

The 8-page injunction is too verbose. It is supposed to tell field employees how to act. They are not going to remember all those words. Lawyers can pore over all the documents and apply them to facts at leisure. People who are effectively police officers facing off with protesters need to think fast.

[Life of Brian]

And so much of it is couched in terminology just begging to be second-guessed after the fact (e.g., "Federal Agents may order a Journalist* to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement, as long as the Journalist has an objectively reasonable amount of time to comply and an objectively reasonable opportunity to report and observe.") Does prohibiting a dispersal order "that requires any Class member to leave a public place that they lawfully have a right to be" permit the "I'm in a PUBLIC CROSSWALK" traffic-blocking game we've seen in numerous videos? Does prohibiting "Striking any Class member with a vehicle" mean that people can now just stand in front of an ICE vehicle and prevent it from moving altogether? And on and on.

You can bet your bottom dollar protest/activist groups are going to tear this apart with a fine-toothed comb and make playbooks on how to goad agents into getting close enough to these murky lines that they'll be constantly defending against contempt orders as long as they continue operations.

Or, they could just pull out of town and make all this hassle go away....

* I love how they capitalize "Journalist" as though it's a rank of nobility. Wonder if it was originally a defined term but the definition got yanked late in the game. Without some sort of definition, this is yet another boots-on-the-ground complication -- rabble-rousers whip out camera phones and suddenly they can't be ordered to disperse.

[M L]

Analysis of elections from MAGA perspective.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/06/nolte-gop-can-fully-embrace-maga-or-face-more-tuesday-night-election-beatings/

There is no silver lining in what happened Tuesday night. Republicans lost everywhere, and not by the expected small margins . . .

One issue is that without President Trump on the ballot, a whole lot of MAGA voters don’t bother to come out.

Another issue is that without Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. basically on the ballot, a lot of our voters don’t come out. Kennedy’s base of support is very different from Trump’s.

Without Trump and RFK Jr. on the ballot or out there on the stump, what you’re left with are the realities on the ground, which come down to a few things…

First, there’s the quality of the candidates.

Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earl-Sears has a great story, but she’s a lousy candidate. Her first mistake was alienating Trump supporters. Then she went all in on the culture wars, specifically biological men being allowed in women’s bathrooms. That’s great, but voters are much more concerned about the economy.

The quality of the candidates in New York was abysmal. Cuomo is tainted beyond words and single-handedly killed the family dynasty. Sliwa has all kinds of positive qualities, but he’s not mayoral.

Second, the energy against Trump on the left is no joke. It’s not abating. This allows Democrats to run a national campaign locally, which is much easier than running and scaling up a local campaign, especially when it comes to turnout. Local Republican organizations must come up with a plan to turn out those so-called “low-propensity voters” who put Trump over the top. This means…

Third, and I cannot stress this enough, local politicians must grasp reality, and that means fully embracing Trump and the MAGA movement. MAGA’s national populism is the future of the Republican Party. I know that’s still difficult for many Republicans to face and it is an especially scary prospect in a blue New Jersey and blueish Virginia, but that’s where our base of voters is. Donald Trump turns 80 next year. In three years, he will be out of office. Republicans need to become MAGA, and then some.

Fourth, it really is the economy, stupid; and, of late, Trump has been awfully distracted with world events — trade deals, peace deals, etc. There’s been a lot of world travel. There’s been a lot of success. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration needs to refocus on Making America Great Again, which is a lot less attractive to any president. After all, overseas, U.S. presidents hold all the power. Domestically, it’s all about in-fighting, compromise, haggling, and partial victories. The lure of foreign policy is obvious, but it can also be a trap.

Therefore, everything Trump does between now and the midterms should be economy, economy, economy...

[John 4]

Ludicrous nonsense.

[grb]

Three Points :

1. ML (quoting) : "Without Trump and RFK Jr. on the ballot...."

But the voters were clear in every exit poll: Trump was on the ballot - as was his whole freak-show cabinet of leeches, loons, wack-jobs, and sleazy hucksters. The article's author just didn't like the ensuing result.

2. ML (quoting) : " ....and that means fully embracing Trump and the MAGA movement."

Please (says I with a wide grin), go right ahead. Trump is going to leave the GOP disgraced, humiliated, and in wreckage. That's true even if the Dems don't win next year's midterms. But if they do and get full investigative power in one or both houses of Congress? Just image all the corruption, criminality, and lies they'll expose! You could have several weeks of hearings just on Zhao's pardon purchased for two billion dollars. The Cult insists they don't care Trump is a criminal, hopelessly incompetent, and always settling for stunt over substance. They're entertained and that's enough. Let's see how well that indifference lasts when all the dirty laundry is exposed where they can't pretend not to see.

3. ML (quoting) : "Trump has been awfully distracted with world events — trade deals, peace deals, etc."

Not per Trump himself. By his own words, the big focus is on bulldozing the East Wing and ogling his proposed Bling Palace. But like every other Cult member, the author of the article has clean-up duties trailing behind Trump.

[jb]

"This allows Democrats to run a national campaign locally, which is much easier than running and scaling up a local campaign, especially when it comes to turnout."

It's becoming increasingly the case lately that all politics is national, but at least for the NYC Mayor's race, most of the discussion was on local issues. And Mamdami's success in the primary came largely because he was able to scale up an incredibly effective local campaign.

"Third, and I cannot stress this enough, local politicians must grasp reality, and that means fully embracing Trump and the MAGA movement"

In NJ, Ciattarelli was all in on Trump and MAGA. This did not seem to help him at all.

[M L]

Your point 2 was good for a laugh.

You had the investigation of the century with Mueller.

Then Round II with Jack Smith.

But next time you'll really find something! Just keep your conspiracy theorizing in overdrive.

[jb]

Jack Smith found compelling evidence of multiple felonies. The fact that Trump was reelected and therefore the cases couldn't be pursued doesn't mean the investigation didn't turn up any problems. And Trump's corrupt behavior is wildly more brazen in this administration--there's not even a pretense that he's not using the Presidency to advance his personal interests at this point.

[SykesFive]

Winsome Earl-Sears was an amazingly poor choice of candidate even for a race in which the Republicans were doomed by the Iron Law of Virginia Politics (the president's party always loses the gubernatorial election).

[Bob from Ohio]

Some good news.

Hillel Neuer@HillelNeuer
1h
TRAGIC: Francesca Albanese, the UN's de facto spokesperson for Hamas, says she can no longer use a credit card, rent a car, or open a bank account, due to the historic U.S. decision to sanction her.

“I am treated almost like Osama bin Laden, and I find it horrible, horrible!”

https://x.com/HillelNeuer/status/1986496372284014687

[M L]

"I am the mother of a U.S. citizen"

Birth tourist? Smart for them. Stupid for U.S.

[jb]

She works for the UN in NYC and has lived there for over a decade. Not sure how you get from legally moving to where your job is to "birth tourism".

[TwelveInchPianist]

Her wiki page says she lives in Tunis.

[jb]

Yeah, she no longer lives in the US--this wouldn't be possible with the US sanctions on her. And I was wrong about where she lived when her child was born; she was lecturing at Georgetown at the time.

In any case, she was a lawyer working in the US. Hardly seems like birth tourism unless you think she got the job specifically for the purpose.

[M L]

You're right, that's not birth tourism. Upon a quick google I thought she generally lived elsewhere.

It might be an example of a regrettable immigration decision, to let her come here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Does she, perchance, live in a third floor apartment?

[Commenter_XY]

Just desserts.

[Bwaaah]

The world's smallest violin is busy playing other jobs right now.

[loki13]

You can indict a guy for a ham sandwich… actually, you can’t.

You can try a guy for a ham sandwich, but a jury won’t convict.

Sandwich Guy is found NOT guilty by a jury in what was another stupid overreach by the DOJ.

[jb]

The Feds couldn't even catch the guy originally. The transit police picked him up. Overall, just a bang up job by the Trump administrations anti crime initiative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Something tells me this outrage is selective.

People are prosecuted for low-level battery against cops all the time, to very little outrage.

[Bob from Ohio]

Juries like this are going to get "protestors" killed.

[grb]

The supposed "victim" ICE agent brazenly lied to the jury. I'm guessing that didn't help.

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed. When your testimony is contradicted by photographic evidence, it doesn't help your credibility.

[ducksalad]

What outrage? All I see is some well-deserved mockery.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fine. Then it's selective mockery.

[ThePublius]

In the good old days, sandwich hurler would have just gotten a good ass kicking, and that would be the end of it.

[jb]

That might have happened if the Feds had actually managed to catch him, but he was a bit too quick for them.

[grb]

ThePublius : "In the good old days...."

I'm not sure I want to know what you think the "good old days" entailed. I'm not sure you'd be so indiscrete as to set it in print. But I'm guessing you'll get off on the video at the end of the below link. So - hey - have fun!

https://digbysblog.net/2025/11/06/they-always-wanted-a-police-state/

[Mr. Bumble]

The real "good old days" were when Bert the cop (Ward Bond) in It's a Wonderful Life" took a few pot shots at George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) When he ran down the main street of Pottersville in the never been born sequence.

[grb]

I suppose I shouldn't confess this, but I've never seen the film. For that matter, I've only seen half of Gone With The Wind. The Ex and myself went to see it at a theater in Florida, but she insisted on leaving at intermission (though after I'd won a bottle of wine by an audience drawing). Being originally from Germany, I guess it didn't translate. That said, I understand it was extremely popular in the country way back at the time of its release.

[Mr. Bumble]

Actually it wasn't that popular upon release in 1946. Even though it was nominated for several Academy Awards it did poorly at the box office.
Its real popularity began when it was shown on TV (someone let copyright lapse) and for many people became a holiday tradition.
It may seem a little hokey to many people today but it has a great cast and I think it's worth a watch as we enter the holiday season.

[grb]

(I wrote the below about Gone With the Wind, then realized your reply was about It's a Wonderful Life". Oops!)

Actually, I was speaking of popularity in Germany at the time of its release. But I double-checked, and the facts are more complicated : Both novel and film were popular, but eventually banned by the Nazis for some reason or other. Of course various forms of American were extremely popular in that country at the time, with the cowboy novels of Tom Mix particularly so.

And that persisted decades later. The Ex was brought up in a small village north of Berlin and I used to joke, "I Married a Communist" like the title of some lurid 50s movie. But as a child? She watched Bonanza and Little House on the Prairie dubbed in Deutsch. Not that we were totally spared culture shock. A mention of something like Gilligan's Island might draw a total blank. Apparently that wasn't dubbed into German.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Apparently Kubrick didn’t understand Nicholson adlibbing, “heeeere’s Johnny!!”

[grb]

Kubrick was an odd bird. I read a book about the film production of 2001 and it was replete with his eccentricities. According to Arthur C. Clarke, he was worried that NASA's Mariner IV probe about to do a Mars flyby would discover some form of alien life. Per Kubrick, this would somehow spoil the debut of his new sci-fi movie - I guess by taking the wind out of its sail. This concern grew so great the director tried to take an an insurance policy that would pay-out if little green men were spotted. Clarke says Lloyd's quoted a number, but it it must have been high because the idea was never pursued.

Of course 2001 was stone-cold brilliant, particularly because it ignored everything a movie was supposed to be. But cold is an apt metaphor, because an inhuman coldness runs thru most of his mature films. I never saw Barry Lyndon, so perhaps that's the exception to the rule.

[not guilty]

Two weeks ago today, Jack Smith offered to testify before Congress in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025.10.23-letter-to-chairmen-jordan-and-grassley-re-investigation-of-jack-smith.pdf

The response from Congressional Republicans? Radio silence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/03/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-investigations.html

Hmmm.

[John F. Carr]

In 2017 a black defendant in Massachusetts signed a form agreeing to keep his public defender:

The form stated that the CPCS[*] investigation found that Doyle had a bias against, inter alia, "people who do not appear to be Caucasian (white)" and that Doyle had "an actual conflict and should not ethically represent people in these groups"; the form also stated that Doyle was contesting these findings.

The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts ruled that this waiver was not adequate because attorney Doyle's social media posts were so offensive the defendant should have seen them before deciding. Mentioning an investigation was insufficient.
Commonwealth v. Badgett, 24-P-239, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-badgett-ac-c24p239/download

Sample social media activity (see decision for longer list):

A shared post of a collage of three photographs —- one of Black men wearing shirts with the words, 'Trump & Republicans Are Not Racist,' one of a Black man in a 'Make America Great Again' hat, and one of two Black men wearing cowboy hats and a shirt and bandana with the confederate flag —- captioned, '5 minutes after Trump legalizes weed in all 50 states'

"I just saved years off the kid's ass. Between you and me, he should stop gang-banging. He spent 7 months in the can until today."

The defendant, facing firearms charges, will have the benefit of Bruen-related precedent on retrial. The prosecution will need to prove lack of a license to carry. The agency that has the gun license database doesn't have enough staff to testify at all the trials.

[*] CPCS = Committee for Public Counsel Services, a provider of public defenders.

[not guilty]

"The defendant, facing firearms charges, will have the benefit of Bruen-related precedent on retrial. The prosecution will need to prove lack of a license to carry. The agency that has the gun license database doesn't have enough staff to testify at all the trials."

I surmise that the Commonwealth's proof would include something similar to what the feds offer in a prosecution for willful failure to file income tax returns -- testimony from agency staff that they had done a diligent search for a gun permit bearing the accused's name and other identifying information, but failed to find one. The degree of diligence of the search, including staffing limitation, would of course be fodder for cross-examination.

[John F. Carr]

The prosecution needs a live witness to testify to the database search. The state doesn't have enough employees qualified to testify. The burden of proof used to be on the defendant to prove licensing. The state didn't need a lot of professional witnesses.

If the defendant is a felon, the prosecution may introduce his criminal record instead. Felons are disqualified from getting gun licenses. (If one were issued by mistake, I suppose it would be valid. In this way Massachusetts law differs from federal law.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Damn. It sounds like the dude got more clients off with a couple of edgy Facebook posts than most lawyers do in a career.

Now that's dedication.

[Kazinski]

The 2nd Circuit and the NY Court of Appeals are in a desperate race to see which one will be first to throw out the ridiculous 34 felony verdict against President Trump.

"A path to dismissing President Trump’s hush money criminal conviction was reopened Thursday after an appeals panel revived his bid to move the case to federal court."

"The panel comprised U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier and U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Carney, both appointed by former President Obama, and U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez, an appointee of former President Biden."

The panel ordered District Judge Hellerstein to reconsider Trump's argument that the case should have been removed to Federal Court, because the case involved testimony and evidence about Trump's official acts in office.

The NY Court of Appeals is also considering Trumps appeal on other grounds, including whether or not the Jury needed to reach a unanimous verdict on which predicate offense triggered the upgrading of the case to a felony, rather than a time barred misdemeanor.

[not guilty]

"The NY Court of Appeals is also considering Trumps appeal on other grounds, including whether or not the Jury needed to reach a unanimous verdict on which predicate offense triggered the upgrading of the case to a felony, rather than a time barred misdemeanor."

Really, Kazinski? When did the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decide the case?

[Kazinski]

Ok, lets play the game where someone gets pedantic about the ridiculous naming conventions for NY courts.

I lost.

[David Nieporent]

Sandwich guy was acquitted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

SCOTUS stays the injunction preventing the government from correctly noting some people's sex on their passports.

[grb]

Normal people might say, "We'll always have Paris".
MAGA says, "We'll always have transexuals".

Poor things. It's all they have left.
And they're shocked (shocked!) that normal people no longer care.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and before the day is done:
Happy Pickle Night!
https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/the-tradition-of-pickle-night/

[jb]

I find it extremely disappointing that there are no pickles involved in Pickle Night celebrations.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wasn't Lord Nelson brought back pickled in a barrel of rum?

[grb]

Yessiree, Trump has a plan! A least ten times since the election results have come in, he's insisted we now have two-dollar gas. To a long term supporter worried about prices. In an interview. Before a cabinet meeting. Apparently it's the single idea bouncing around that empty skull of his - sloshing the mush that's left of his brain.

It sure worked in the cabinet meeting. Vance was seated beside him and gravely nodded his head. But with normal people? Not so much.

[wvattorney13]

Is it bad that I am old enough to remember when predictions of "two dollar gas" were ones of fear that gas would rise so outrageously high to be $2/gallon?

[David Nieporent]

Gas in real dollars is cheaper now than pretty much any time where you remember that.