Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A jury in the District of Columbia has acquitted Sean Dunn on the heinous federal misdemeanor charge of assault with a deli weapon. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwich-guy-verdict.html

Thus illustrating the maxim: de minimis non curat lex.

[Frank Drackman]

Emmett Till's murderers were acquitted also.

[Moderation4ever]

People who beat police officers on January 6th were pardoned.

[Riva]

Ashli Babbitt was unarmed and shot and killed by Capitol police.

[RJ Mathews]

Ashli Babbit lost her life after breaking into the Capitol to engage in a violent attempt to overthrow the government that was successfully thwarted by the Capitol Police.

[Mr. Bumble]

You have a future in writing fiction.

[DDHarriman]

lmao you still believe that nonsense after all these years?

The Narrative, Nothing But The Narrative. No Thought. Only Narrative.

You're an NPC

[jb]

...he says, offering precisely nothing to rebut The Narrative.

People know what happened on January 6 because it was basically covered live on TV. Attempts to gaslight us over all these years can't change the baseline facts of what happened.

[DDHarriman]

How many ppl were charged with trying to overthrow the government?

Zero.

[David Nieporent]

I guess that's literally true, in that there's no such offense as "trying to overthrow the government" in the penal code. But multiple Proud Boys leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is essentially that.

[Riva]

Yeah, Biden and his thugs were really feeling their oats. Jacobins sure have a lot of fun when in power. They're not laughing so much now though, eh asshole?

[Riva]

That’s deranged, RJ Mathews band. And more than a little stupid.

[Bwaaah]

"People who beat police officers on January 6th were pardoned."

And I'd not that you probably don't find that humorous.

[Zarniwoop]

Do you think beating police officers is humorous?

Post Traumatic Sandwich Disorder is humorous. Jan 6th was ... not that.

[Bwaaah]

I didn't find either humorous. At all. And I have a pretty far-ranging sense of humor.

Throwing shit at people isn't funny.

[not guilty]

Neither is claiming that a sandwich "exploded" when a photograph showed it to be intact. Jurors don't like being lied to.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Throwing cream pies at people is famously funny.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So is giving people wedgies, kicking them in the nuts, etc.

[Bwaaah]

NG & SL:
Throwing cream pies is funny in comedy. I don't believe that battery on a street by an aggressive stranger is "famously funny," even in your wounded hearts.

Like so many other foolish people around here, you and NG pick and choose who deserves the protections of our laws based on your political-class games. You've moved beyond the relevance of modeling decent behavior now? Even as you watch DJT's selective abuses, you are unable to connect them to your own.

Keep dismissing whataboutism while employing it (as NG does above). We're all getting our asses kicked by whataboutism now. And it's going to get worse, because you're all doubling down.

Like scorned bitches. Real funny.

[not guilty]

No, I have not employed whataboutism above, and I have no idea what your comment refers to.

I have offered some rationales on this comment thread which could explain the jury's not guilty verdict. In one of my comments below I referenced the O. J. Simpson not guilty verdict as an example of perjury from a prosecution witness alienating jurors. That is not whataboutism at all -- it is providing a prior example to illustrate my point.

[Bwaaah]

Me: "Throwing shit at people isn't funny."
You: "Neither is claiming that a sandwich "exploded" when a photograph showed it to be intact. Jurors don't like being lied to."

You: "That is not whataboutism at all."

[not guilty]

No, that is not whataboutism. It is an explanation for what I believe contributed, in part, to the not guilty verdict.

[David Nieporent]

Throwing shit at people isn't funny.

The other day Trump seemed to think that dumping shit on people was hilarious. What changed?

[Bwaaah]

Nothing for me. Try somebody else.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Excellent. Boost the economy. Pelt ICE thugs with sandwiches by the thousands. Help them further fatten up, to slow them down.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Pelt ICE thugs with sandwiches by the thousands."

Now that kind of attitude is completely uncalled for. ICE agents are law enforcement just like any other cops in this country.

If you want to fatten them, pelt them with doughnuts.

[shawn_dude]

Other cops in the country identify themselves and largely follow the rules of due process. I recommend thanking them.

ICE agents are lawless thugs who violate due process rights of anyone darker than a ghostly-white, 80yo shut-in. If we're going to pelt ICE agents with sandwiches, I vote for using tortas purchased from latino businesses.

Note to food trucks... switch to sandwiches and show up to protests.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Methinks he was just making a joke.

[Riva]

J6ers should have ordered take out. Then the Biden thugs would have just laughed it off.

[DDHarriman]

You're calling for violence against federal authority.

Reported to the FBI.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or: de skull be cracked next

Don't encourage police officers to make the arrest the punishment.

[Martinned]

I still think that's a fundamentally weird outcome, from a formal legal point of view. The only reason why you get there is because the jury doesn't trust the judge (and the legal rules that govern the judge's choices) to impose a sensible sentence.

Unless I'm mistaken, the technically correct answer is to convict on the most minor of the charges, and then to impose a sentence of no punishment at all. But the jury and the judge have no way to agree to that, so the jury has to pretend that the man isn't guilty at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you summed it up, and there's nothing weird about it; This sort of thing is exactly why we HAVE a jury system.

Nobody actually thinks juries are the best way to arrive at the legal truth. They're a breaker inserted in the legal circuit, intended to trip when a prosecution offends the local conscience.

Zengler, Penn, both guilty as hell.

[Martinned]

It's a weird system that involves a guilty man admitting his guilt after pleading "not guilty", and the factfinder concluding that he is not guilty while agreeing that he definitely threw that sandwich.

[ducksalad]

No weirder than saying "innocent until proven guilty", as if a trial somehow retroactively changes what happened the night of the murder. It's just shorthand: "Not guilty" is the way the defendant says he wants a trial and the way the jury says they don't want any punishment.

BTW part of the reason this happens is that the federal courts don't allow the jury to determine the sentence. In states where the defendant can ask the jury to sentence you can get your "technically correct answer".

[Martinned]

Yes, I think I've said here in the past that I think the question should be "Do you want a trial?", to which the answer will often be "Yes, your honour." Having a guilty person start the trial phase by saying he's not guilty feels like an inauspicious start, somehow.

[not guilty]

No, a plea of "not guilty" is simply a means of joining issue on the allegations of the charging instrument and putting the government to its burden of proof.

If I could wave a magic wand and get my way, I would replace the verdicts of "guilty" or "not guilty" with "proven" or "not proven."

[Drewski]

We say people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not that they are actually innocent.

[ducksalad]

Are you one of those guys who waited until January 1, 2001 to celebrate the new millennium?

[Drewski]

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing. Now you just look like a moron.

[David Nieporent]

Strictly speaking, every moment in time a new millennium starts.

/pedantry FTW!

[RJ Mathews]

Throwing a sandwich isn’t illegal. So whether or not he threw it wasn’t what a guilty verdict hinged on. It’s not strange at all once you peel back the outer layer of bullshit that been draped over this case by the media. That’s exactly what a jury is designed to do. The system worked as intended. That you find it weird is a reflection of how clueless our society has become

[Martinned]

(I think that's a reply to me.)

AFAIK he also admitted that he hit the cop with the sandwich. So I'm not sure which bit of the actus reus or the mens rea he denied, at least as far as the simplest charge goes. (I think for some of the charges the question was whether he did anything "forcibly". I'm not sure how the judge instructed the jury on that one.)

[RJ Mathews]

For someone speaking so definitively on the matter, you seem to not know or not be sure of a lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unlike you who knows everything including what's in people's minds.

[RJ Mathews]

Not sure where that came from, but no, not like me.

None of has all the facts. A claim of jury impropriety at this point is based solely on ignorance or bias.

[John F. Carr]

Proposed jury instructions are available. I do not see the instructions chosen by the judge.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71223124/united-states-v-dunn/

[Kenneth Almquist]

A slightly more complete set of filings are available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71223125/united-states-v-dunn/

For whatever reason, the parties argue about the jury instructions, but the docket doesn’t contain either the draft instructions they are arguing over or the final instructions.

Also, docket entry 37 was not the defense attorney’s best work.

[not guilty]

"AFAIK he also admitted that he hit the cop with the sandwich. So I'm not sure which bit of the actus reus or the mens rea he denied, at least as far as the simplest charge goes. (I think for some of the charges the question was whether he did anything "forcibly". I'm not sure how the judge instructed the jury on that one.)"

The statute charged in the complaint provides that one who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with [a law enforcement officer] while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" commits a federal misdemeanor "where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault".

The adjective "forcibly" modifies each verb that follows it. I'm not sure either how the judge instructed this jury, but a pattern instruction from another federal circuit states:

The term “forcible assault” means any intentional attempt or threat to inflict injury upon someone else when a defendant has the apparent present ability to do so. This includes any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate bodily harm, regardless of whether the victim was injured, or the threat or attempt was actually carried out.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/Fifth/PJI-CRIMINAL_2024_EDITION_FINAL.pdf (p. 109)

In common parlance the word "forcibly" means through application of strength or power. Think of the iconic photograph from Tiananmen Square. The man standing in from of a row of tanks was resisting, but that resistance was hardly forcible.

I surmise that the jury were unpersuaded that merely throwing a sandwich at someone clad in body armor was forcible.

[wvattorney13]

That's an informative post. It seems that for all of our back and forth, the jury got it right. The statute requires a threat of "injury" or "bodily harm." I think the guy meant this to be insulting.

While that satisfies most battery laws, it is not covered by this law. Good job.

[Armchair]

Throwing a sandwich at someone and hitting them with it is assault. It's "unwanted physical contact."

Even spitting on someone can be considered assault and can be charged as such.

[Jmaie]

Don’t know about you, but I’d much rather get hit with a sandwich.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned: "I still think that's a fundamentally weird outcome,..."

You got this one [almost] completely right. There probably would have been punishment, but in line with this kind of offense, a minimal one such as a short probationary period (assuming the guy acknowledged wrongfulness).

It is a sign of TDS that NG and Loki and others find it funny when a person, with great anger, hurls a food item a stranger. I don't believe they'd feel that way in any typical case. Somehow, in this case, it is sufficient that they don't like the employer of the victim.

[grb]

Well, there's also the fact that the "victim" ICE agent lied to the jury. And it was crude obvious lying, easily exposed by the defense attorney. He said one thing; a photograph showed another. Maybe the jury didn't like that. How would you feel as a juror as you watched him smugly lying - right to your face? The case was a joke from the beginning. I bet every juror knew about the absurd attempt to press felony charges. The perjury surely made a difference.

[Martinned]

It may well have, but it's not the jury's job to punish perjury.

[not guilty]

Jurors don't like being lied to. Recall how Mark Fuhrman tanked the O. J. Simpson case.

[Martinned]

Yes, but it would be better to have a criminal justice system that doesn't hinge on what random people off the street do and do not like. Because there are also other things that American juries famously don't like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(1996_film)

[ducksalad]

"it's not the jury's job to punish perjury"

TLDR version: Watcha gonna do about it?

Full version: That's your opinion, but aren't you an opponent of the whole jury system? Of course that's also the judge and prosecutor's opinion, and it's the law, but the jury is specifically supposed to be a check and balance against judges, prosecutors, and even the law if need be. The judge, jury, and law can all think I violated my oath by voting to acquit, they still lose.

[Martinned]

Yes, and the reason why I'm opposed to the jury system (well, one of the reasons) is because juries can be influenced by all sorts of things other than the relevant facts, and because there's no way to stop that or even know about it, because juries don't have to give reasons.

[ducksalad]

can be influenced by all sorts of things other than the relevant facts

True. On a related matter: I think you'd agree that at the moment, at least in the US federal court system, it appears that some judges and prosecutors are also influenced by things that ought to be irrelevant.

IMO principle #1 is don't falsely or unjustly convict people. Judges and prosecutors can prevent a jury from doing that by dismissing the case. Juries can prevent a judge and prosecutor from falsely doing it by acquitting. If there aren't *any* fair minded people involved we're screwed regardless of the system.

Upholding principle #1 means sometimes guilty people will go free. I don't have stats to prove it but it seems obvious that judges and prosecutors let way more guilty people go than juries.

[wvattorney13]

"TLDR version: Watcha gonna do about it?"

Since you asked, if the law won't protect these officers then they will turn the process into the punishment. Rough treatment on the way to the jail. Slow walking the paperwork until the judge goes home so that the arrestee has to spend the night in jail. Putting him in a cell with the child molesters, etc.

And you might say that suspects shouldn't be treated that way. Well, what are you going to do about it?

[Sarcastr0]

'We gotta allow some evil or else evil people will just do worse evil.

Cynicism bootstrapping into more cynicism until you end in nihilism.

[David Nieporent]

Since you asked, if the law won't protect these officers then they will turn the process into the punishment.

I think you've got your order of operations backwards there.

[ducksalad]

But wait there's more:

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function. However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how 'minor'. Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another," [US Atty for DC] Pirro said in a written statement.

That's an unexpectedly dignified and appropriate statement. Maybe she learned a lesson from this verdict. Add that to the jury's job description: educate prosecutors on civics.

[Jmaie]

Sure it wasn’t a deep fake?

[Drewski]

Honestly this comment is even funnier than the sandwich attack. Oh, the humanity!

[Bwaaah]

You mean funny like ha ha funny, or funny like snide, condescending, belittling funny?

If the first, good for you. And if the second, well, good for you.

[jb]

I recall food flights when I was a kid, but I never remember the Feds needing to be involved to resolve them or to punish anyone for "hurling a food item". I think sometimes detention was involved for particularly egregious instances.

[Tom Dial]

The jury did not have to pretend anything. Their job was to listen to the testimony of witnesses as questioned by the prosecutor and the defense attorney and to evaluate the evidence produced and the testimony given. Then they were to evaluate that evidence and testimony, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and the overall consistency of all the information presented, to arrive at a judgment about what the facts were. Finally, they were to apply the law, as the judge presented it to to the facts and decide whether the prosecutor had proved each component of the offense charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they answer that in the affirmative, they must find the defendant guilty, and if not, they must return a not guilty verdict. They must do that for each offense charged, and may not consider any offense that was not charged. It is not necessary to be a lawyer to know this; anyone who has served on a jury knows it from the preliminary instruction given to all prospective jurors and the judge's instruction given them before they began deliberation.

Here, the jury probably decided that the defendant was not guilty because the prosecutor failed at trial to prove adequately some aspect of each offense at trial; my guess is that they doubted the actual harm to the alleged victim, dismissing his testimony as not credible based on photographic evidence given, and failing that returned a not guilty verdict.

In deliberating they were enjoined to evaluate not only the statements made

[Commenter_XY]

This outcome has a whiff of jury nullification, NG. Is it?

[Mr. Bumble]

The outcome has a whiff alright. The same whiff as the jury pool
in DC.

[Frank Drackman]

Well it was Black & White.
Well, mostly Blacks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And we wonder why basically decent cops become racist thugs.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're decent, cop or otherwise, you don't become racist thugs.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "And we wonder why basically decent cops become racist thugs."

I bet a lot of Ed's "basically decent racist cops" also commit brazen perjury on the stand as this ICE agent did. Perhaps all....

[not guilty]

I suspect that the jury figured no harm, no foul. I am surprised that the deliberation lasted for seven hours.

[Mr. Bumble]

Best guess is a female juror saw that he threw and ran like a little girl and convinced the others he would be mistreated in the gulag.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit, great minds think alike, I was going to say he should have been charged with "Throwing like a Girl"

[Martinned]

Classy

[jb]

Does "little girl" here mean "faster than any is the nearby federal agents"?

https://youtu.be/joRjb5WOmbM

[ducksalad]

I suspect the jury figured (a) overreach by DoJ, as evidenced by the original attempt at a felony indictment, (b) insincere courtroom prosecutors, as evidenced by their melodramatic language, and (c) perjury by the officer, as evidenced by the lie that the sandwich "exploded".

We've got stuff like the exclusionary rule and charges dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct, even when the defendant is obviously guilty. Along the same lines, I don't see a big problem with the jury letting someone off because they think the cop and prosecutor are behaving dishonestly.

Plus what Martinned said about the jurors believing an unreasonably harsh sentence would be imposed.

If it had been handled by the local police, charged at the appropriate level, described in court without exaggeration, and the cop hadn't lied to the jury, they could have got a conviction.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... they could have got a conviction."
Possible, but still very unlikely in DC.

[jb]

Not sure if you realize this, but lots of people get convicted for minor crimes all the time in DC.

[not guilty]

"Not sure if you realize this, but lots of people get convicted for minor crimes all the time in DC."

Most minor crimes go before the DC Superior Court, not before the U. S. District Court. The saying, "Don't make a federal case out of it" has some substance.

[Poxigah146]

We all know that had these same jurors been trying a 1/6 protester who threw a sandwich, they'd have found him guilty of the felony.

Unprincipled leftist hacks.

[David Nieporent]

Hypothetical hypocrisy is the best kind!

[Bwaaah]

NG: "I suspect that the jury figured no harm, no foul. I am surprised that the deliberation lasted for seven hours."

I'd like to watch you get "no harm" assaulted daily just so I could laugh at you and "people like you."

But the truth is, I wouldn't. Under any circumstances. Such an assault should be illegal. It is illegal. Your laughter is poisoned. Your mind is poisoned.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

This is a weird reply. Nowhere in his brief comment did he write the jury was correct in thinking "no harm." He was just surmising their thought process. Your personal attack is off base. Reading is fundamental.

[Bwaaah]

NG: "the heinous federal misdemeanor charge of assault with a deli weapon [...] de minimis non curat lex [the law does not concern itself with insignificant details]"

Those weren't the jurors' thoughts. Those were his thoughts, including the snark. (And they may well have been the jurors' thoughts.)

A big fat insignificant sandwich might just as meaninglessly be thrown by an angry stranger at you too. Let's all cheer the WHOGAF crowd! Is that unfair? OK. Big fat insignificant sandwiches at law enforcement officers. WHOGAF?

[John 4]

This almost as pathetically melodramatic as the prosecution. Get a grip.

[wvattorney13]

Does this only apply to law enforcement officers? Say you and your wife are walking down the street and some guy throws a footlong at her? You just tell her to walk it off? Can he do it again, or is two throws too many?

Explain this new definition of battery that will control in your brave new world.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Say you and your wife are walking down the street and some guy throws a footlong at her?"

Forest Ham? Meh. Listen, can one of you guys throw a meatball with extra provolone at her next? Thanks!

[Mr. Bumble]

Given your screen name I thought you meant something else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I was thinking of asking if we were still talking about sandwiches.

[Zarniwoop]

You could always start posting as "FootlongPianist" 🙂

[TwelveInchPianist]

Technically it would be foottall pianist.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone knows the real charge was not respecting ICE as is required of the proles.
Thinking there's a real concern here is some overdramatic bullshit. It's pretty sad you're so cooked you're buying it.

'WHAT IF SANDWITCH THROWING BECOMES AN EPIDEMIC!

WHAT ABOUT MULTIPLE SANDWITCHES?!!'

Part of being a tool is not realizing how ridiculous you're being.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Everyone knows..."

Great argument! Just like everyone knows that the vast majority of Jews voted for Mamdani, right?

Way to go Vibrator!

"Part of being a tool is not realizing how ridiculous you're being."

Sarc finally gets something right!

[Bwaaah]

LOL. That's the extraordinary rub: he says it, but he doesn't see it. Not in himself.

[Tom Dial]

By reports, the defendant admitted (before being charged and possibly before receiving a Miranda warning) to throwing the sandwich. It is almost certain that throwing a sandwich, as such, is not an offense of any real significance, although it is easy to imagine a littering ticket being issued.

[not guilty]

I suspect that the jurors were unpersuaded that there was a forcible assault. There are no federal common law crimes, so simple assault and battery does not suffice for conviction.

The word "forcible," in common parlance means accomplished through the use of strength or compulsion. As I have noted elsewhere on this thread, the pattern criminal jury instructions used in the United States Fifth Circuit states:

The term “forcible assault” means any intentional attempt or threat to inflict injury upon someone else when a defendant has the apparent present ability to do so. This includes any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate bodily harm, regardless of whether the victim was injured, or the threat or attempt was actually carried out.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/Fifth/PJI-CRIMINAL_2024_EDITION_FINAL.pdf (p. 109)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Part of being a tool is not realizing how ridiculous you're being."

Yeah, imagine thinking that in a free society there must be some way to prevent people from throwing sandwiches at each other!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Imagine thinking that's an important issue society really needs to address.

The thrower in this case was actually pretty respectful, in that the sandwich was still wrapped up. The ICE agent could've just taken it home for later.

[TwelveInchPianist]

lol. Imagine thinking society doesn’t need to address battery.

[not guilty]

Simple battery was a crime at common law, but it is not a federal crime.

Forcible assault of a federal law enforcement officer is a crime, but merely throwing a sandwich at an armed LEO wearing body armor doesn't, uh, cut the mustard.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about a watermelon?

[Bwaaah]

HA HA. Drop a watermelon on him. Funny!

Teach the kids what we think is funny. Teach the cops what we think is funny. It's all in good fun!

[Commenter_XY]

I agree = ...the jury figured no harm, no foul...

Memo to Prosecutors: Win some, lose some.

[Moderation4ever]

A good example of where lawfare doesn't work. Those who complain that Trump was subject to lawfare should note that when Trump's cases went to trial the jury saw enough evidence to convict or to side with the plaintiff in civil cases.

[Poxigah146]

In both cases, the jury pools were 100% Democrat. It's not a good example. It's a good example of how leftist juries will act based on whose ox is gored.

[Moderation4ever]

Do you have a citation for your claim that the jury pools were 100% Democrat? I would also point out that last I checked both sides in a trial are allowed to participate in the selection of a jury. So why did Trump's lawyers pick Democrats?

[Poxigah146]

They're pretty close to it, especially in DC. Manhattan is a little less so.

But the real point is that a white conservative should have the right to a jury of white conservatives. A black liberal is not a "peer" of someone like Trump.

[David Nieporent]

A black liberal is not a "peer" of someone like Trump.

Yes, but Hitler is dead, so what are you going to do?

[Moderation4ever]

Most white conservatives are not Trump's peers either. The problem is the limited number of narcissistic incompetent billionaires with dementia to draw the jury pool from.

[Zarniwoop]

Druggie billionaires with multiple kids by multiple wives and non-wives (cough*Elon*cough) are reasonably adjacent to DJT, though.

[Moderation4ever]

I am thinking that Trump peers are pretty limited Jeffery Epstein maybe but he is dead. Andrew Windsor but he is not a US citizen.

[ducksalad]

Here you go Pox, a ready made pool of 16 candidates that meet your criteria:

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

Well, 15 out of 16 but we could let Ben Carson be an alternate juror. Note that none of 16 made it into his second cabinet and some were more or less openly thrown under the bus. Mike Pence could be the foreman.

[not guilty]

"Do you have a citation for your claim that the jury pools were 100% Democrat? I would also point out that last I checked both sides in a trial are allowed to participate in the selection of a jury. So why did Trump's lawyers pick Democrats?"

I have long suspected that asking MAGAts for actual facts to back up their assertions causes them to break out in hives.

[Armchair]

It's like trying a case in the old south before an all white jury.

If you're a white person, and the victim is black...lawfare just doesn't work.

If you're a black man, and the victim is white...doesn't really matter what the fact are. Lawfare works very well.

[Riva]

So hypothetically NG, you’d be ok with someone throwing something at police hauling away people who happened to be praying in front of an abortion mill?

[not guilty]

I don't think that merely throwing a sandwich at a cop wearing body armor constitutes a forcible assault, no matter what the purported grounds for the arrest -- whether the arrestee was praying or not.

At common law there was a privilege to resist an unlawful arrest. That is no longer the case in most jurisdictions, in that we prefer the judicial system to sort out matters after the fact.

[Riva]

I see. Throwing food is really nothing. I guess if J6ers had just pelted the capitol police with some Subways then Judge Chutkan and her comrades would have shrugged their shoulders, noted a big judicial Meh, and dismissed the charges?

[not guilty]

Throwing a sandwich, under these circumstances, simply was not a federal crime. The jurors, after hearing more than three days of proof, recognized that.

And yes, if J6ers had just pelted the capitol police with some Subways on the grounds outside the building, they would likely not have been charged in U.S. District Court. That kind of conduct would have been, at most, disorderly conduct chargeable in D.C. Superior Court. Judge Chutkan accordingly would have had nothing to do with it.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Capitol police fired kinetic-impact projectiles into the outside crowd not armed with sandwiches. One can only imagine the response if they had brought food. And the individual who assaulted the federal officer had his fit inside the restaurant. Does your new food throwing rule have special applications that apply only outdoors now? You need to be more clear before announcing this new legal standard.

[not guilty]

Riva, have you read the statute that Mr. Dunn was charged with?

As I have posted elsewhere on this thread, I'm not sure how the judge instructed Mr. Dunn's jury, but a pattern instruction from another federal circuit states:

The term “forcible assault” means any intentional attempt or threat to inflict injury upon someone else when a defendant has the apparent present ability to do so. This includes any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate bodily harm, regardless of whether the victim was injured, or the threat or attempt was actually carried out.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/Fifth/PJI-CRIMINAL_2024_EDITION_FINAL.pdf (p. 109)

You offered a bullshit hypothetical about J6ers pelting the capitol police with some Subways. I replied in substance that that would not be a “forcible assault” either, and it would not likely have been charged in U.S. District Court if it occurred on the Capitol grounds outside the building.

OTOH, if the J6ers had stormed the Capitol and then thrown sandwiches in addition to rioting, they would have been charged with the same offenses which they were charged with. The hypothetical sandwiches would have made no differences one way or the other.

[Riva]

You are absolutely full of shit. "Storming" the Capitol? A lot of POS pro-Hamas supporters have arguably "stormed" the Capitol as well as other vocal and angry leftist refuse. No one charged them with "insurrection." And no one shot and killed those antisemitic turds. No one even employed kinetic-impact projectiles. But you're good with that grossly excessive force being employed against other protestors. No inconsistency too big for your bullshit logic offered to excuse assault on a federal officer. What a fucking disgrace.

[David Nieporent]

A lot of POS pro-Hamas supporters have arguably "stormed" the Capitol

Hmm. I must have just overlooked all the broken windows in those cases.

No one charged them with "insurrection."

Maybe these imaginary people didn't try to get the loser of an election forcibly installed in office.

[Riva]

Recent news reports identify a deep state actor as the DC pipe bomber. Would these same corrupt hack thugs scruple against breaking some windows? We'll see.

[Bunny495]

Not sure this a de minimis issue as much as straight out jury nullification due to obvious political bias. Other posters have noted if there were no political overtones and an ordinary guy threw anything at a LEO it would be an open and shut guilty of assault verdict. As for overcharging all one has to do is look at the January 6 cases for obvious overcharging. There have been multiple threads here about how common overcharging is. The theory is overcharge and then the accused pleads to lesser and included.

To me the real issue is not just how to punish acts like this but how important geography is in what happens. I can still remember a time when if you threw something at a LEO and it hit them the response would be a sound beating about the head and shoulders with a billy club. Not saying this was a good idea, just that it worked as a deterrent.

I am also concerned about the argument that throwing something at a LEO and hitting them is valid 1A expression. Conventional wisdom was your freedom to throw a punch stops just before my nose.

So riddle me this. Should there be any punishment for throwing things at LEOs, or should those who do it get off Scott free.

[Martinned]

Throwing "things" or throwing a sandwich? Because "things" includes a lot of things that would probably hurt them.

[Bunny495]

So how would you word a law to allow throwing sandwichs but now allow throwing salt shakers? My definition of things includes sandwiches. I also suspect that in most jurisdictions battery is different than assault with a deadly weapon. Not saying throwing some things is more likely to cause injury, just that my understanding of the law is that it is illegal to throw anything.

Not trying to be sexist but some peeps "throw like a girl" and no matter what they threw there would be little damage while almost anything Bob Gibson threw in his prime would probably hurt.

Bottom line is it is either illegal to throw something and hit someone or it is not.

[Martinned]

My suggestion would be to require non-negligible harm to the victim as an element of the crime. But you do you.

[Bunny495]

Not sure what your definition of non-negligible harm is. It has long been the standard that spitting on someone is a crime even) though the harm is hard to define. Not to mention using profanity to tell someone to get out of town (based on the fact they are, or at least appear to be, a LEO) probably does not meet my definition of "fighting words" combined with throwing something and hitting a LEO with it under normal circumstances would qualify for battery.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your suggestion is inadequate to address the concerns of those of us who would rather not be pelted with sandwiches as we go about our business.

Are you claiming a right to throw sandwiches that goes beyond the end of my nose?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — Good question. Two answers:

1. The LEO in question is dressed in nothing more protective than ordinary uniform, and unarmed. Basically a British Bobby of the old school. That guy needs all the protection a law demanding civility can give him.

2. The LEO in question is an anonymized, masked, armored cipher, without even visible indicators that he/she is a LEO of any particular kind. And heavily armed. With those folks around, the citizenry need every protection a law demanding civility can give them.

[Bunny495]

I am aware of Florida laws related to "special circumstances" which basically means assaulting someone under 15 or over 60 (hope I remember correctly) can result in harsher punishment. I am not aware of any laws about lesser punishment if you attack a MMA champion fighter.

The accused not only committed assault (no one is claiming otherwise, just that it was somewhat humorous to some and the actual damage at best was a grease stain due to how poorly the paper the sandwich was wrapped in kept the grease from leaking so dry cleaning might be needed). The accused was aware he was dealing with a LEO and used profanity to tell the LEO to get out of the city.

I still don't get how throwing things/sandwich at anyone is not a crime (albeit a minor one) that deserves punishment.

[ducksalad]

It is a crime and it does deserve punishment. It's just that cops lying on the witness stand and prosecutors overcharging also deserve punishment, and the only punishment the jury had within their power was to let the defendant walk.

[wvattorney13]

I don't disagree. There was a lot of fault to go around here. The guy throwing a sandwich was wrong. The attempting charging the guy with a felony was wrong. The ICE agent acting like it was a shotgun blast was wrong. The prosecutor was wrong.

Nobody could put partisanship aside and realize that this should have been 48 hours in jail, a $100 fine and don't do it again.

[David Nieporent]

You're being disingenuous here. There's no both sides here. Exactly one person decided that it wouldn't be that: Donald Trump. (via his lackey Jeanine Pirro, of course.) There was no opportunity for anyone else to have a say.

[wvattorney13]

A jury had a say. It and a good many posters here seem to believe that you can get away with a little bit of battery---at least as long as it is ICE.

[Sarcastr0]

You can get away with a ton of stuff that are technically crimes or torts. Against all sorts of people and things. Even when it’s clear you did them.

Because we don’t live in a police state.

De minimis non curat lex.

Again, the real reason the feds went hard on this wasn’t battery, it was disrespect.

Which is bullshit. Unamerican bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

The jury did not get to weigh in on the penalty the guy should receive.

[shawn_dude]

Yes, I think ICE has forfeited its expectation of being treated as a legitimate law enforcement function given that ICE itself is immune from prosecution and violates people's constitutional rights so often it's got to be a formal goal in their charter.

An argument for the Second Amendment used by conservatives is that we need this in order to resist an unlawful government. I don't see how this can be a valid argument but a sandwich is off limits.

If ICE's victims had a venue for legal redress and the lawless agents could be held liable for violating constitutional rights, then I would be more concerned about sandwich guy being let off without some sort of slap on the wrist.

[Jmaie]

So how do you differentiate between problematic officers and those who aren’t? Is the expectation that any moral person would have resigned from ice by now?

[Sarcastr0]

He talked about ICE as an institution, and sandwiches as projectiles.

You've changed to scope to be about individual officers and...maybe also deli weapons? Unclear.

[David Nieporent]

Is the expectation that any moral person would have resigned from ice by now?

Absolutely.

[bernard11]

I'd give him a ticket for littering and let it go at that.

[Drewski]

Oh, well, if he used PROFANITY than of course he should be hanged.

[Armchair]

Indeed, it's straight out nullification.

Spitting on a police officer is charged as assault. Hard to see how this is anything less.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When I see thugs in the streets, wearing vests emblazoned with, "Federal Government POLICE," who am I looking at? I'm wondering if that is how you show up if you are a Border Patrol agent working in areas outside your geographic jurisdiction. Or is it a more generally-useful enforcement ambiguity?

[Bwaaah]

Do you think "I.C.E." in big bold letters would make them more successful at their jobs?

[Martinned]

You know what else would make federal officials better at their jobs? Requiring citizens to let them stay in their homes! Would save a fortune on their commute!

[Frank Drackman]

At least the guy got fired, had some Bullshit "International Affairs Specialist" position with DOJ. Maybe he can get a job at Subway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NYC has more Jews than any city other than Tel Aviv -- and a Jew-hating mayor. What happens next?

Is it like Boston where the suburbs can outvote the city proper?
Will Staten Island join New Jersey? Or become its own city?
Do NYFD/NYPD have residency requirements?

[Martinned]

You're hallucinating.

[Frank Drackman]

and Your King is a no-good-Atheist-Commie-Pinko-Fag, and probably has his Dick up your Ass as I'm typing this.

[BrotherMovesOn]

It is his natural state at his advanced age.

[Commenter_XY]

What happens next?

Jews will leave NYC.

[Brett Bellmore]

Won't just be Jews. But Mamdani is counting on that, isn't he? He's going to use the Curley effect to consolidate power.

[Martinned]

And while he's at it, he's going to bring millions of illigal immigrant Arabs in to replace the Jews and Christians! /s

[Mr. Bumble]

Arabs are a religion? I think you meant to say Muslims.

[Martinned]

I did not. If I had meant to say Muslims I would have. I think racists like you would equally object to Arab Christians, Druze, etc., so my version of the Great Replacement Theory intentionally referred to Arabs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fail!

[Frank Drackman]

"going to bring"??
Try "brought". Last time I was in Times Square there were more Prayer Rugs than in Terror-Anne on "Take a Terrorist to Work" day.
That Jet flew into a Skyscraper years ago.
24 years ago to be exact.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Brett finds another sinister leftist plan no one mentioned at all!

Let’s see how the numbers look in a year before we write NYC’s epitaph, eh?

[Life of Brian]

Let's see indeed. Shall we put you down for 1) zero reduction in the NYC Jewish population and 2) zero change in sentiment toward them?

[Martinned]

#Strawman

[Bwaaah]

Up until Wednesday, Sarc believed that a "strong majority" of Jews supported Mamdani.

Now two days later, well past the quickly decaying half-life of a lesson in his life, we can all be back on the same page with him again.

[bernard11]

I'd rather know what specifically antisemitic policies you expect him to institute.

Shall I put you down for a NYC version of Kristallnacht, or maybe that the city council will pass NYC's version of the Nuremberg Laws?

The hysteria over Mamdani's alleged antisemitic plans is out of control, or maybe it's a just intended to deflect attention from the right's, um, serious problems with that issue.

[Commenter_XY]

I expect Rockland and Orange counties to see some modest increases in real estate activity over the next year. FL will be a larger beneficiary.

As tolerance for antisemitic behaviors increases in NYC, so will outward migration of Jews from NYC. Just look at the pro-hamas rallies on NYC college campuses earlier this year (I'm looking at you Columbia). They will leave.

Leave aside the antisemitic tendencies of the new Hizzoner. Consider the marxist side of the equation. The taxation portion alone will make it cost prohibitive for any billionaire to live in NYC. That is a lot of tax money walking out the door. Banks and Finance companies can relocate overnight; the pandemic showed that. More tax money out the door.

How are those NYC-owned grocery stores going to operate...will the experience be like Walmart or Whole Foods? Is that ownership structure even legal under the NY State constitution?

I am glad NYC voted in Hizzoner. I want NYC to get everything Hizzoner wants to give, good and hard (apologies to Mencken).

[BrotherMovesOn]

What a fantastic paper! - Thanks

[BrotherMovesOn]

Ahh, this is the right place ...
*reply to Brett*

Fantastic paper! - Thanks

[BrotherMovesOn]

still nope o well

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter, you live in fear living in NJ.

Don’t pretend you speak for all Jews.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Don’t pretend you speak for all Jews."
Yes, that's David Notsoimportent's job.

[Commenter_XY]

Let me know when you figure out basic math and English. You know, things like a majority.

[Sarcastr0]

This you?

"cities will not be safe for Jews in America, for a few years. Consequently, I now avoid meetings (or theater) in cities, and opt for surrounding towns; Teams is best."

Paranoia that keeps you from leaving the house isn't healthy!

[Life of Brian]

There certainly are a number of bad-faith debaters around here, but our dearly beloved Sarc may well be the only one with the level of excellence to actually quote the words "opt for surrounding towns" and recast it in the same post as not leaving the house.

[Martinned]

Your interpretation is that Commenter does Teams meetings from his local Starbucks?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc...This you?

"The strong majority of your fellow tribe members in NYC have proven to believe the facts about Mandami are very different from your take."

[David Nieporent]

You know what's bizarre? Sarcastr0 was shown that he was mistaken, and immediately admitted he was wrong, and you people are pretending the opposite.

I guess that explains why you people are never willing to admit your own mistakes.

[Bwaaah]

They say that "admitting you are wrong is 90% of the battle."

But that's bullshit. The harder part of the battle is changing yourself to not be wrong the same way again.

In this case, it's not that he was wrong about how Jews felt about Mamdani. It's that he synthesized a baseless belief about a large category of people.

I have no reason to belief he is changed in any substantive way.

[MaddogEngineer]

It took him days to acknowledge that he fell for an immigration hoax, while immediately trying to condemn me for merely being skeptical that all the facts in his eventual hoax were accurate, even as I acknowledged it could have happened. Because obviously I'm a fascist.

Now that's really bizarre.

[Sarcastr0]

How long ago was this grudge you're nursing?

Not that it's relevant to any discussion here but I note that even your characterization has me acknowledging fault when it's called for.

As DMN noted, you are all so eager to find fault in me personally you'll keep banging on about it on irrelevant threads even after I've acknowledged fault.

Part of why I keep the set of posters that seems into being my reply guys mostly muted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"even your characterization has me acknowledging fault when it's called for."

The characterization is that you spout blatant BS, and sometimes admit fault when your claims are shown to be blatant BS.

That's really not much to brag about.

[hobie]

Yeah but just think of all the Muslims that will replace them. Did Al Qaida finally get its 'victory mosque' in NYC, XY?

[bernard11]

Why? What exactly do you think Mamdani is going to do to NYC Jews?

Now, some of what he proposes will be harmful to the city, and that may cause some departures, but I doubt it will be worse for Jews than for others.

[shawn_dude]

Slight edit here: "will be" to "could be." He's not going to get Trump-level authoritarian power over the city. He'll be limited by city council and other organizations and factions around him. He's not immune from lawsuits, either. He has limits and some of his ideas will certainly bump into them.

[bernard11]

OK. I mean, obviously something that doesn't get done won't be harmful, so I should have said, "Some of his proposals, if enacted will be harmful."

[shawn_dude]

This is a load of hooey. Maybe a small number will move to New Jersey, but the vast majority will stay where they are because he's not going to do anything anti-Jewish. According to exit polls, one third of NYC Jews voted for him. Not a ringing endorsement but not nothing. It's hard to argue that Mamdani is an existential threat to Jews in NYC when a full third of them voted for him. Further, the economic and social inertia of being invested in a place will keep the other 66% there as well. I point to LGBT residents if Florida as an example, and that's a case where the state government has grown increasingly hostile to them over the last two decades. I expect Mamdani won't be hostile to NYC Jews at all, regardless. (Though there are some Jews who think criticism of Israel is automatically anti-Semitic, so to them he's going to be beyond the pale. )

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Is it like Boston where the suburbs can outvote the city proper?"
One wonders what this even means. O Dr. Ed!

[Glaucomatose]

If it were true, I’m pretty sure Michelle Wu wouldn’t have just won reelection so easily that Josh Kraft conceded a month before Election Day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at a map of Eastern Massachusetts. Note how I-95 forms a loop around Boston. That's actually Route 128, the middle of three proposed loop roads around Boston, and I-95 was never built through Boston.

Notice how I-495 also forms a loop around Boston. That's the outer loop and the inner loop was never built.

Notice how Route 128/I-95 and I-495 go through towns and cities, and how there are more towns and cities between them. Those are called "suburbs." More people live in the "suburbs" than in "Boston."

The Massachusetts General Court consists of a 180 member House and a 40 member Senate -- both districted on the basis of population. And the surburban legislators outvote the city ones.

[David Nieporent]

Um, so when you said that "suburbs can outvote the city," you just meant that the combined suburban population was bigger than the city's? Something that is true of almost all metropolitan areas in the United States?

[shawn_dude]

@BrotherMovesOn, it's Ed so I'll need to guess but here's an example that would fit that statement:

Hillsborough County Florida is very conservative--there are even actual KKK and similar groups in that county. County representatives gerrymandered the county when I resided in Tampa such that the city was sliced up like a pie where it maximized county votes over the city. In the early 2000s, the county voted to ban Pride events and to ban pride displays at any county office or building, including libraries. They could do this despite the fact that the city government was liberal and LGBT-friendly. In fact, the city even voted for a former lesbian police chief as mayor. But despite that, the county (suburbs) controlled a lot of what could be done in Tampa. This is one of the reasons the Pride parade happens in Pinellas county across the bay.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks for your comment and I appreciate anyone's efforts to translate Dr. Ed into coherent English.
Dr. Ed's assertion remains mysterious though.
I'm sure your Tampa situation is real enough, but counties don't usually operate here the way they do in the south.

[Poxigah146]

They brought it on themselves. Fuck them.

[jb]

Are you under the impression that the Jews of NYC mostly live in Staten Island?

[Martinned]

One of the downsides of daily Open Threads is that I can't very easily respond to things said in response to my comments from the day before.

Let's start with this question, which doesn't seem to have received a reply in my absence:

Tell me who, in the US, of similar prominence to Andrew Windsor, suffered any consequences whatsoever due to being associated with Epstein.

For context: The three people who most obviously suffered consequences from their association with Epstein are all Brits: Ghislaine Maxwell, Andrew Windsor, and Peter Mandelson. The latter two, of course, should have been investigated a lot more still, but I struggle to think of anyone in the US who even suffered the repercussions they did.

Am I forgetting someone?

[Frank Drackman]

Your Pediophile King.

[Kazinski]

Well who has else has been credibly accused by someone on the record of a crime?

Virginia Giuffre filed a lawsuit against Andrew, who else has she named?

Who else has made public allegations?

There are rumors about Reid Hoffman, but nothing concrete, who else?

[Martinned]

Former Senator George Mitchell, for one. And former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-ordered-teen-girl-have-sex-powerful-men-accuser-n1040996

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/epstein-sent-girl-to-governor-and-senator-for-sex-she-testified

[Mr. Bumble]

Richardson has been dead for two years and Mitchell is still hanging on at age 92.
Got anyone else?

[Martinned]

You're surprisingly not curious.

If only there was some way to get a longer list of potential suspects out in the open...

[Commenter_XY]

If the statute of limitations has not run out, prosecute Mitchell.

[wvattorney13]

The only evidence against him is the uncorroborated allegations of a dead woman (who clearly cannot testify). I think a lawyer might be able to get him off.

[Martinned]

Maybe someone should ask all of the other victims, many of whom are presumably still alive.

[wvattorney13]

I personally find that chasing dead ends to gather evidence against a 92 year old man for decades old crimes to be not the best use of prosecutorial resources.

I mean, he is not a former Nazi death camp guard. What would be the point?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

...so to speak.

[not guilty]

"If the statute of limitations has not run out, prosecute Mitchell."

Prosecute Mitchell for what offense(s), XY? Aggravated boatriding?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, if the evidence is there, then prosecute (if statute of limitations has not expired) Mitchell for sexual assault of a minor. I don't care if he is 92; he did this while in the US Senate, allegedly. There is no excuse for that behavior; none, zero. Expose it.

If Mitchell is legally incompetent, then put everything out there and call it a day. Expose it.

This is not political. I don't care who it is. My interest is simple: Name and shun them. And incarcerate them if we can.

[not guilty]

"NG, if the evidence is there, then prosecute"

Begging the question much, XY?

What minor(s) did Mitchell assault? When and where? (Sexual assault is most often a state offense.)

[Michael P]

Those two are/were Democrats, so the Swamp wouldn't hold them responsible for anything.

[Martinned]

You're telling me that the Regime is reluctant to prosecute Democrats? Or are you telling me that the Regime isn't actually in charge of who gets prosecuted in Federal court? Because both claims seem dubious to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Plan on digging up Richardson?

[Frank Drackman]

Was going to say the same thing about George Mitchell, but amazingly he's still alive

[Martinned]

He walked around for years while Trump was president and after Virginia Giuffre started testifying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Virginia Giuffre filed a lawsuit against Andrew, who else has she named?"

Well, she named Dersh, but it turns out she may have been mistaken.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... she may have been mistaken."
Or lying.

[Martinned]

So carry out a proper investigation and find out.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dig her up to question her?

[Martinned]

If only there was some other way to investigate the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because a proper investigation can resolve any he said/she said?

[Commenter_XY]

Release all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

If that means victims are emotionally re-traumatized, that is a very unfortunate outcome. I wish it were not so. One woman is already dead, I am sure there are others. There are resources for psychological help and I'd mandate gov't funds for that as well (meaning, if the victims want psychological help, they get it from the best people and programs available). The societal need to name and shun those who violated these girls (and boys) is now greater than protecting the anonymity of the victims. These are very sick people who live freely without restriction among us, the ones who sexually abused minors. Do you think these very same predators have stopped sexually abusing minors simply b/c Epstein is dead? Do you think that the aphorism, birds of a feather flock together, might apply here?

I don't care who these predators are, I just want them exposed.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but that might include the horn dog in the blue dress.

[Commenter_XY]

All of these predators must be exposed, no matter who they are.

It isn't political. It isn't ideological. Society must protect itself from predators like that, and it starts by knowing who they are.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you continue to insist without any evidence that there are such people?

[Bunny495]

You are forgetting Jes Staley (Former CEO of Barclays Bank)The Consequence: Forced to resign as CEO of Barclays in 2021 following an investigation by UK regulators into his relationship with Epstein. This was a major professional and financial downfall from the top of the banking world. Staley maintained a professional and personal relationship with Epstein, including exchanging numerous emails, even after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Staley and other executives were later named in lawsuits alleging that banks facilitated Epstein's criminal activities.

[Martinned]

Also while I was asleep, Trump still believes in state ownership of the means of production:

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m4yau7i2zj2u

[hobie]

Don't forget that Donny Mamdani has also taken controlling chunks of US Steel, Intel and I believe Nvidia. Martin, you have to realize that, these days, when the American right starts to bizarrely accuse someone of something (Marxism, stealing elections, pedophilia) it usually means they're the ones who are doing it.

[Martinned]

Trump also still believes in government-regulated prices:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/novo-lilly-shares-rise-trump-obesity-drug-deal-nears-2025-11-06/

[Martinned]

And Trump's brain still no work good:

https://newrepublic.com/post/202825/donald-trump-novo-nordisk-executive-collapses-drugs

[Dr. Ed 2]

The impeachments start: https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-brandon-gill-james-boasberg-impeachment-arctic-frost

[Martinned]

I was going to say "don't hold your breath", but it would probably be better if you did.

[ducksalad]

You can have your harassment impeachment but it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict. They can't even cobble together 60 votes to end a shutdown that, by their own admission, caused them serious damage in last Tuesday's elections. They can't cobble together 51 votes to end the 60 vote rule.

Things the Framers provided for that are now dead letters:
- Impeachments
- Veto overrides
- Actual constitutional amendments
- Actual treaties

[Martinned]

- Declarations of War
- A system of conferred powers for the Federal government

And, while we're at it:
- No insurrectionists in office
- A President who is bound by the law just like everyone else

[ducksalad]

Also all true, but those are really all secondary effects of our inability to do impeachments, veto overrides, and constitutional amendments.

Gorsuch showed yesterday that he understands this.

[David Nieporent]

Any member of congress can draft and introduce a bill.

[Zarniwoop]

Can’t introduce a bill while Speaker Johnson is keeping the House closed for business.

And that would mean Rep. Grijalva would have to be sworn in and the Epstein discharge petition would advance….

[Martinned]

In non-US news, you can get foreign countries to pay for part of your budget. That looks roughly like this:

EU demands UK pay into budget as part of relationship ‘reset’

For context, other countries that have a similar relationship with the EU that the UK does, like Norway and Switzerland, already pay into the EU budget.

Here's a report from the EU Court of Auditors on the topic: https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/rw21_03/rw_third_countries_contributions_en.pdf

(Wouldn't it be great if the US had an institution like that? A whole independent body just to make sure there are no shenanigans with the money.)

[Brett Bellmore]

So, the push to render Brexit futile continues...

[Martinned]

Of course. The EU never wanted Brexit. It hurts both sides. Why wouldn't the EU side undo it as much as possible?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that much is obvious, but I'm talking about the British government's push, really. That the EU would try to drag them back in, unwilling or not, was obvious.

[Mr. Bumble]

The EU Comintern can always use a few extra Euros.

[Martinned]

So can your president, who wants a vig from every profitable company he sees.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is that whataboutism?
Asking for a friend.

[Martinned]

It's the best I could come up with to respond to your utterly content-free comment.

[Commenter_XY]

Raises an interesting question, though, Brett.

Suppose UK says, "Nope" to the EU extortion demand to pay into EU budget. Then what?

[Martinned]

The are negotiating constantly. I know that concept confuses you.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the word "They" confuses you.
Seriously, you're beginning to remind me of the Late/Great Reverend Kirtland, who at least was occasionally amusing. Don't you have a Venezuelan Drug Boat to catch???

[Brett Bellmore]

The question is, what force does the EU have available if the end of the negotiations is still "no"?

[Martinned]

The number of things the Brits still want from the EU are endless. They are all deep in the weeds of policy, so you might not care about them, but the British government does.

https://www.cer.eu/insights/next-steps-uk-eu-reset

[Kenneth Almquist]

From Martinned’s link: “In practice, the lack of legal certainty in bilateral UK-US arrangements limits their value to business.”

That is a tactful way of saying that Trump has demonstrated a willingness to violate international agreements, even ones that he negotiated.

[Kazinski]

You know that's what the Farage government is going to say.

[Martinned]

Such a government would say a lot of things, most of them bullshit. Hopefully the British electorate will look at the US and nope out of electing such a government.

[wvattorney13]

I would guess that the EU could start imposing travel restrictions and embargos against UK products.

[Sarcastr0]

UK finding ways to deal with that terrible damaging decision continue.

Of course stuff Brett likes can never fail, only be failed. So it’s another conspiracy.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "So, the push to render Brexit futile continues..."

Geez, Brett, what do you expect? Have you looked at the current polling in the UK on Brexit? It is deeply unpopular, judged a mistake by 20-25 point margins. The voters realize they made a mistake. The politicians do too. Everyone is adjusting to the realization they pointlessly screwed-up.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing Brett likes could possibly be bad or unpopular, it's always sabotage by the many secret leftists embedded in every institution.

[Bwaaah]

Accuse them of "conspiratorial" thinking. Accuse them of "vibey" thinking. Accuse them of "racist" thinking. Accuse them of "fascist" thinking.

Start back at the first one. Rinse. Repeat.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Accuse them of, "not thinking," and just stop there?

[grb]

Bwaaah : "Accuse them of "conspiratorial" thinking."

Really, Bwaaah? Have you ever read anything Brett has posted?!? You're effectively chastising Sarcastr0 for saying water is wet.

[Martinned]

If the shoe fits...

[Kazinski]

Yet somehow Reform UK (which was launched as the 'Brexit Party') is ahead by more than 10 points in the polls.

[Sarcastr0]

I take it you don't follow UK politics, other than Tommy Robinson and whatever white nationalist slop Musk feeds out.

Reform has been running away from Brexit as fast as they can.

[wvattorney13]

In every article I've seen Farage absolutely still supports Brexit. He has said that the Tories messed up the details, but elect him and he will do it right. I don't see any backtracking.

""Economically, the UK would have been better off staying in, wouldn't it?"

Mr Farage said he "doesn't think that for a moment" - and blamed the "failure" on the Conservative government's handling of Brexit."

https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-says-brexit-has-failed-and-economy-has-not-benefited-but-downing-street-disagrees-12882281

[Sarcastr0]

He was the Brexit guy, but now he deflects in interviews.

If you check, you will find that May interview is one of maybe 2 times he's talked about it this year.

He's trying to become Mr. Mass deportation now. It's just populist grifts all the way down.

Decent chance he'll be PM. I don't expect a graceful rubber meeting the road in that case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The RAF sends 5 planes to fly over the EU at just under 1000 feet and just under Mach 1.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "The RAF sends 5 planes to fly over the EU...."

Two Points:

1. Is this ALL of the EU, Ed? That would be one hell of a flight!

2. Revenge fantasies are part of human nature. Everybody has them at one time or another. Ed's only distinction is his are exceptional goofy. That, and an embarrassing eagerness to share.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dear Penelope,
It is now day seven with no EBT benefits and the hunger is becoming unbearable. How can a government treat its neediest citizens (and non citizens) so poorly.
We can only hope that we will be saved by a federal judge.
Your former obedient servant,
Mammy

[Commenter_XY]

This is what I don't get. U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr seems to think the Fed Gov't is some kind of ATM that dispenses cash like Pez candy. Memo to Judge McConnell....the Fed Gov't has been shut down for a while because of political and policy differences. The Executive branch says there is not enough money. Can a Fed judge simply compel the US Treasury to print more money (for SNAP benefits)?

I did not know the constitution gave Fed judges that authority (heh).

What else might a Fed dist court judge compel the US Treasury to print money for? Just asking.

[ducksalad]

If the point you were trying (but failed to clearly) make was that judges shouldn't be allocating spending, fine, I agree.

The print money thing is BS and you know perfectly well that shutdowns are pure theater. No printing necessary to run the sandwich trial. Or more seriously, no printing necessary to burn millions per day in salaries, fuel, and ammo to run the naval operation off of Venezuela.

[hobie]

The funds are already allocated by Congress to fund SNAP. Trump just won't release them to feed the MAGA hayseeds in the trailer parks.
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/administration-wont-spend-all-snap-funds-it-says-are-available-leading-to-deep-benefit-cuts

[Commenter_XY]

I know math is hard.

Contingency fund of 4.5B < ~8B SNAP Program Monthly Pmts

Where does the other money come from? One number is smaller than the other. If you say, "From somewhere else" then say what "From somewhere else" actually is. I don't think Fed judges have that kind of authority, do they?

[hobie]

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/11/usda-tells-grocery-stores-no-special-deals-for-snap-shoppers.html

"USDA tells grocery stores no special deals for SNAP shoppers"

You hillbillies really don't want non-billionaires getting food

[wvattorney13]

I'm a non-billionaire and I've got food. I'm also a hillbilly. I've got all the bases covered.

[Bunny495]

That is just the tip of the ice cube.

The bigger problem is according to some 42 cents of every dollar the federal government is spending is borrowed and reliable estimates is servicing that debt will soon exceed what the federal government spends on defense.

[Martinned]

According to who?

[David Nieporent]

*to whom

[Bunny495]

Take the federal government expenditures subtract the tax revenue collected and the rest of the spending is borrowed. It varies from year to year and during COVID-19 was as high as 48%. Now it is around 25% but that will likely change if Trump's tariffs are voided.

[bernard11]

Is it 25% or42%?

[wvattorney13]

From your link: "Following rulings from two federal judges late last week, the Administration committed to use all of SNAP’s multi-year contingency reserves to provide partial allotments to SNAP participants — the bare minimum required by the courts thus far."

I haven't read the rulings, but to me it is far from clear that a multi-year contingency reserve can or must be used for this particular thing. This would tap out the entire reserve for only partial payments for the first of November. Surely a reasonable administrator could believe that the funds should be allocated somewhere else.

In any event, I certainly don't think it is in the power of a federal judge to make that decision or allocate the money in this way. They are called entitlements, but I never thought that anyone had a legal entitlement to the funding, especially when Congress has failed to appropriate the money.

[shawn_dude]

Congress enacted this SNAP reserve fund for exactly this sort of thing. A reasonable administrator of SNAP emergency funds designed for a time when government couldn't pay the benefits would have to explain why this shutdown is unique and doesn't qualify. That would be like FEMA not releasing emergency funds to Florida after a category 5 hurricane because they think those funds are better spent elsewhere.

[Bunny495]

Problem with you post is Congress did not put enough money into the reserve fund to cover what the judge ordered.

[Tom Dial]

It probably is not within Presidential authority to do it either. It appears to me that under the current administration executive branch accounting and accountability have become effectively nonexistent, extending the common problem of being largely unauditable.

[Poxigah146]

That judge is a Guinness-guzzling paddy piece of garbage. He simply doesn't believe judges have any limits on their authority.

[hobie]

JD Vance responding to judge ordering administration to fund SNAP:

“It’s an absurd ruling because you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do"

[David Nieporent]

Trump rushes to appeal every ruling that he's violating the law and needs to fix it… but not this one. Weird.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh. Lookie there. SCOTUS stepped in and stopped the Pez SNAP Dispenser McConnell. How about that?

[not guilty]

It wasn't the full Supreme Court, and it was not a stay pending appeal. It was Justice Jackson on her own issuing an administrative stay, providing:

IT IS ORDERED that the District Court’s orders are hereby administratively stayed pending disposition of the motion for a stay pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in case No. 25-2089 or further order of the undersigned or of the Court. This administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit’s resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110725zr_pnk0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Trump administration had requested a stay of the two District Court orders “pending the disposition of the government’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, if the court of appeals affirms those orders, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court.”

IOW it is Justice Jackson goosing the First Circuit to rule quickly on the stay application.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I don't think a Fed Dist court judge can compel the Executive Branch to dispense money (e.g. dispense like Pez candies) in a situation where we have a Fed Gov't shutdown, and no appropriation. The reason we have a shutdown are political and policy differences within Congress, and more specifically, the Senate. There is gridlock. There is no appropriation from Congress, and therefore no money. The Executive Branch is better able to determine what is essential to the US than a Rhode Island Fed Dist court judge, for the revenue that actually does come in the door. To me, that is a no-brainer. What other programs might a Fed Dist court judge compel the Executive Branch to dispense money? That is a long list. No way the Constitution gave individual Fed Dist court judges that kind of authority. Why have Art1 (congress) if Art3 (judges) can just dispense (like Pez candies) taxpayer money, no questions asked?

Within the next 45 days, Thanksgiving, Hanukah and Christmas await and the number of heart-wrenching stories will increase exponentially. The pressure will increase on Congress, acutely. This for that. End the shutdown, then fund the program(s). That is the essence of the political bargain to be made here. The only question is when. Hopefully, it will be soon.

In the meantime, can we turn DOGE loose on SNAP? Assuming a US POP of 350MM, then we have ~42MM people collecting SNAP benefits (1 in 8). That is a big* number. They cannot all be legit, can we at least eliminate the fraud (however small)?

*big compared to what is the question. Europe (in aggregate)? Asia? Is 12% out of line, middle of the road, or exceptional?

[David Nieporent]

There is money already set aside for emergency supplemental SNAP spending; I don't see any lawful basis for Trump to refuse to spend that on SNAP benefits. But those funds aren't enough for full benefits, and the court's order went further than that, and ordered him to spend other money to make up the shortful. I don't see any lawful her.basis for that order.

Just like Trump has no legal authority to spend money that wasn't appropriated, or to refuse to spend money that was appropriated, or to spend it in a different way than was appropriated, a court can't do that eit

[TwelveInchPianist]

Other than lack of an emergency, I suppose.

[wvattorney13]

Odd that Jackson issued the stay on her own.

[not guilty]

Not necessarily. She may have been concerned that if she referred it to the full Court, they would have issued the full stay pending appeal that the applicants had requested.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in Supreme Court news:
The Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction barring "...Trump’s executive order to the effect that a person’s sex as shown on his or her passport will be the sex at birth."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a319_i4dj.pdf
Of course the Witches of 1 First Street opposed this because;
" The State Department’s passport policies have grown more permissive since the agency issued its first directive on the subject in 1971. At the time, passports did not include a sex marker. In the late 1970s, the department began to include them on passports, a move that the government then attributed to the rise of unisex fashion and hair styles.
The State Department began allowing transgender people to obtain passports with updated sex markers in the 1990s, so long as they provided evidence of having undergone gender transition surgery. That requirement was rescinded in 2010, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the department began asking only that transgender passport applicants provide a doctor’s letter affirming that they had received “appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.” In 2021, the State Department issued the first passport with a gender-neutral marker — an “x.” The following year, the Biden administration announced a policy allowing passport applicants to select any gender marker."
"There is no legislation here: all of these changes have been dictated by the President or his agent, the Secretary of State. The position of the Democratic Party is that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden can establish a policy on passports, but Donald Trump can’t change it. Because he is Donald Trump, and doesn’t have the same powers a Democratic president would have."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/trump-wins-on-passports.php

[Moderation4ever]

Seems like a stupid policy as the purpose of the passport is to help confirm a person identity. The issue is does the face match the photo not the sex listed. Seems like the Trump administration is putting woke-right ideaology over security.

[wvattorney13]

If there is an issue isn't the problem someone concealing their sex vs. the government providing truthful information in the document?

This would be like saying that people get to select any eye color they want on an ID because otherwise they will just use colored contacts.

Frankly it will do a great job of identifying people. Yep, that's really a dude there. Next.

[TwelveInchPianist]

We put sex on passports. Sex is immutable.

If the person manning the checkpoint wants to know how masculine or feminine the passport holder is feeling, he can ask them.

[shawn_dude]

True. False.
Yes, we put sex on passports and no, it's not immutable insofar as a cursory identity review needs to know. There are thousands of post-surgery people walking around the US right now that are proof that it's not immutable. If the person staffing the checkpoint needs a DNA test to tell if a person's sex at birth is different than their current configuration, it's not relevant to the purpose of the checkpoint. (assuming bigotry isn't part of that purpose, which in our new MAGA world might be assuming too much.)

[Commenter_XY]

Sex is genetically immutable. Don't believe me? Fine...Cite a single example of a human being born XY who has 'transitioned' to XX, genetically.

Sex isn't assigned at birth, sex is genetically created at conception. This isn't bigotry, it is high school biology.

The incidence of psychological and/or emotional disturbance is higher among 'trans' than gen pop. Like it or not, emotionally and/or psychologically disturbed people do represent a higher security risk. There is no 'right of entry' at the border.

[Sarcastr0]

'cursory identity review' is checking chromosomes now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

A "cursory identity review" doesn't determine sex.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have an example to cite, Man of Science?

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment failed to be relevant to shawn_dude's.

Deal with that, then maybe we can talk genetics, sex vs. gender, and the actual issues.

[Josh R]

Like it or not, emotionally and/or psychologically disturbed people do represent a higher security risk. There is no 'right of entry' at the border.

Are you arguing that having natal sex on passports is justified to identify who is trans and deny entry (or more closely screen) these citizens because they are more likely to be disturbed?

[David Nieporent]

deny entry (or more closely screen) these citizens because they are more likely to be disturbed?

Note that passports are for exit, not entry. I mean, yes, one is supposed to show one's passport when one is coming in, but if one is a citizen one cannot be excluded from the country for not having one.

[Josh R]

I wonder if XY wants natal sex on passports so that trans people will face hassles travelling outside the USA.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but if one is a citizen one cannot be excluded from the country for not having one"
Yet....

[Josh R]

I did not know that the sex marker wasn't introduced until the seventies in response to unisex styles. The order concluded:

Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

If the purpose of the marker is security, then what is the reason (other than harming the transgender) to have sex at birth?

[wvattorney13]

It is really simple. You put objective information on the passport. You know that people can try to conceal their sex, hair color, and eye color. If you have a reason to detain them you can verify if a person has cosmetically changed those things. That may or may not give law enforcement an additional reason to suspect that person.

If you do it another way and just let a person choose whatever in the hell they want to put for something, you might as well just leave it off. It now means nothing for anyone. If the designation "male" means male, sex, at birth, then they have something to go on. If it means "male, or maybe female, or maybe one of the other 50 genders" then you might as well leave it off because it gives you no objective, verifiable information.

Putting that aside, let's say you are correct and that doing it your way would be better. You could not vote for the current administration next time. What would be the constitutional issue for courts to adjudicate here?

[Josh R]

Equal Protection does not permit a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. You need a rational basis for the regulation (*).

For this policy to be justified based on people concealing their sex, you have to assume the perpetrator has chosen the opposite sex on their passport even though they aren't transgender. And that can happen under the Biden policy. But under the Obama policy it can't because you needed a note from your doctor. So, the Trump policy went too far and can't be justified on security.

(*) Another argument is this is a facial sex classification and triggers intermediate scrutiny which makes the analysis less favorable to Trump's policy.

[David Nieporent]

I think that as a matter of law the Trump policy is defensible, but SCOTUS's decision to issue a stay is (once again) not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems contradictory.

[David Nieporent]

Not at all. In order for the administration to be entitled to a stay, it's not enough to show it would win on the merits; it also needs to show irreparable harm. But there's no harm of any sort to the administration from delaying implementation of its preferred policy.

[JohnSmith97]

You will have to explain the "harm" in calling a man.. a man..

[Josh R]

For a person with gender dysphoria, living their life in congruence with their gender identity is literally what the doctor ordered.

[wvattorney13]

That isn't any type of legally cognizable harm. I might like it if others indulged in my fantasy but I have no right to compel them to do so.

I mean, surely just acquiescing to the ruling of a court and being forced to recognize the person as a man is not what helps a person with gender dysphoria. The person will know that you don't really mean it.

Should the court order that not only the preferred gender is listed on a passport but Trump must personally like it and feel it as well?

[Josh R]

Firstly, the argument that the person with gender dysphoria is fantasizing denies the reality of gender dysphoria and its treatments. If you rely on that in court, the purpose of the regulation is to belittle trans people which is harmful.

Secondly, no one is being forced to feel or like the result. The government would be forced to list gender identity rather than natal sex. And yes, listing natal sex causes harm in the treatment of gender dysphoria.

[ThePublius]

Cold snap here in Massachusetts. It only got down to 41º F last night, but now it's 31º. My Eversource gas bill will be huge! Can you imagine if I didn't have this old house insulted last year?

[Mr. Bumble]

Try bundling.

[ThePublius]

I am currently doing that. I have an electrically heated vest. It's amazing how warm that keeps me on apparently so little energy. (It's powered by a USB-charged battery pack.)

[ducksalad]

Battery pack maybe 10-20 Watts. Body heat about 75 Watts. Which is why vests worked almost as well before we had electric power.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Body heat closer to 100 watts.

[ducksalad]

You're burning it at both ends.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's not bundling.
bundling
noun

A former custom, especially in New England, in which unmarried couples occupied the same bed without undressing, especially during courtship. See bundle{2}, v. i.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, I didn't even that much "Action" dating the future Mrs. Drackman. Just my luck that stupid "The Rules" Book came out the same year.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect "The Rules" Book didn't bother you much. Maybe the future Mrs. Drackman. But not you.

[Glaucomatose]

Good ol’ Mass Save.

[shawn_dude]

If I thought insulting my 100yo+ house only needed to be insulted in order to have better weather characteristics, I'd have done that a decade ago!

"Your woodwork is shoddy and William Morris would weep to see how you've aged! You have wall-to-wall carpeting!"

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Was told by my team at work to “hold tight and just research until the end of the year” as the project lead of the task I was on is now unavailable because of other commitments, and I requested that why don’t I take ownership of it and was denied.

Fun times. Kinda here until the January layoffs where I’m fairly certain I’ll be laid off. And if I don’t I’ve given up and resolved to quit. I did get a job offer and struggled with whether I should take it and … I declined, it was a small startup I’ll be third engineer and taking a modest but not significant paycheck. And I do like working in FAANG but it’s really just the team and position I find myself in. I’ll keep applying I suppose.

[Commenter_XY]

On occasion, moving laterally or moving into a position that pays less, is a better option than staying put (and waiting for a package that might be vanishingly small, after taxes). Keep an open mind. If a new position offers learning opportunities of stuff you don't know (but you know that you need to know for the future), that is something to strongly consider, career-wise.

If you are not growing, you are dying.

[ducksalad]

Oh man why did you have to say that last part. Been reliably growing 1-2 pounds per year my whole adult life, then this year it went down a couple pounds. No dieting or extra exercise, in fact somewhat the opposite.

All downhill from here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think of it like a sleigh ride and enjoy it before the crash into the trees.

[Bwaaah]

I like that. I already had something like the sleigh ride metaphor. But I didn't have an appropriate ending for it.

You left out the part about the crash where you don't get to walk away from this one. But it's good enough.

I see trees in the distance.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, you are actually dying, ducksalad. We must all die one day.

[Bwaaah]

But there's still time to be the next messiah. If anybody's got anything up their sleeves, I'm all ears.

Fathom this: by my reckoning, we're all going to the same place as Frank Drackman.

[ducksalad]

Stone tablets, yellings from a hilltop, ramblings in a tent, golden plates - those are the old ways.

The new revelations will be online, and ye will know them by their capitalization. It's either Drackman or Trump.

[Bwaaah]

In Drackman, it's not the capitalization. It's the bountiful smattering of snarky phonetic recasting of words, the nostalgic references, the interjection of inconvenient but often enough interesting and _expert_ from-the-ground observations, the intentional irreverence, the not-done-right smear across it all.

You write some decent stuff. But I think you're beating that same old bitch in your little neck of the woods when you posit DJT and Frank Drackman as not only somehow equivalent, but fitting and interchangeable in my messiah fantasies. That's a pretty big stretch you did there on my account. Are you sure that's not more about you than me?

[ducksalad]

fitting and interchangeable in my messiah fantasies

I infringed on your freedom of religion and I apologize. You can of course have any messiah fantasies you want.

Did you notice that Fist of Etiquette briefly made an apparition here?

[Bwaaah]

Is that your vision? A "Fist of Etiquette?" What is that?

[Jmaie]

Please tell me it’s a 1970s Hong Kong kung fu movie…

[Bwaaah]

This is coming around to make sense for me again. Did that movie star Bruce Lee's gay cousin?

[ducksalad]

XY knows. There is a place very near here where you can already find Fist, but it's bleak and uncivilized and I suggest you not go there. If and when he chooses to infest here, you will know it.

[Bwaaah]

Now I'm playing catch up. I did a bit of research. There really is/was an FoE. Are you sure he/it is not deceased?

Now I feel slow, clueless and retarded. But not too bad...kind of like my normal resting state.

[Bwaaah]

Now I realize I saw him yesterday. I had no idea who he was. (I don't much peruse Reason comment outside Open Threads.) But he sounded like a pretty proud pill:

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

I read that and thought, "This guy's late to the game, and he's already wasting time." And it seemed kind of like an ant arriving at the crest of a busy ant hill and stopping to shout, "Everybody! I'm here!"

I don't think he's gonna save me.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I did notice Fist.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe EBT will be funded by January.

[Frank Drackman]

UPS actually pays their "Seasonal" employees pretty well. Heard they need some help in Louisville. Not a bad Gig, ride along in the Package Car, get some fresh air, exercise, did it every December in College.

[Bwaaah]

Christmas lumpers have always been their proving ground for future route drivers. I didn't know they did ride-alongs (except when supervisors would go along to check the true timings of the routes).

UPS. By my observations, an excellent workforce. But the color brown? Ewwww.

[Malika la Maize]

Layoffs accelerated in October, pushing 2025 job cuts to levels typically seen in recessions, according to newly released data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a private firm that tracks workplace reductions.

U.S. employers have announced 1.1 million layoffs so far this year — the largest reading since the pandemic recession and on par with 2008 and 2009 job cuts during the Great Recession, the firm’s figures show. The data includes a recent spate of layoffs at major companies such as UPS, Amazon and Target, and adds to growing concern about a labor market slowdown.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/06/job-cuts-accelerate-october-layoffs-trump/

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking Character here, (just because I am a Character doesn't mean I don't have Character)
can we have a moment of silence for Dallas Cowboys DE Marshawn Kneeland, who killed himself early Thursday morning, barely 48 hours after scoring a Touchdown against Arizona.
In his second year with the Cowboys, 2d round Draft Choice, hot little Girlfriend, everything to live for.
OK, he did have to play for the Cowboys.
Gallows humor, Gallows humor, pretty sure he didn't start his week planning to kill himself.

Frank

[Michael P]

(moment of silence)

That's sad. He should have had many more decades to live.

[Frank Drackman]

17 Veterans a day kill themselves (unlike that poor woman who gets raped every 7 minutes that's a legit Stat) and here's some more "Bullet Points" on Veteran Suicide (get it? "Bullet" Points on Suicide?)
- 6,407 Veteran suicides in 2022
- 22 consecutive years with 6,000+ veteran suicides
- Over 150,000 Veterans have died by suicide since 2001
- 2nd leading cause of death in veterans under age 45

and as much as I'd like to blame Dick Chaney, the Suicide rate is actually higher in Non-Combat Vets than Combat.

I blame the Shrinks, everyone with "PTSD" (you know who's really sick? the Combat Vet who doesn't have "PTSD")
gets the SSRI/SNRI "Cocktail" (an actual Cocktail would be more effective) Oh, and now they're also prescribing Ketamine, which is just PCP's more socially acceptable Cousin, which actually is safer than the SSRI/SNRI's which is saying something.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

“I blame the Shrinks”

Most deranged people do.

Or, in deranged speech:

most Deranged People )do

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because bleeding was such an effective medical treatment.

[Frank Drackman]

Still is for Polycythemia and Hemochromatosis

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tell that to George Washington...

[Frank Drackman]

OK, it's not the treatment for "Quinsy' (AKA "Peritonsilar Abscess", or "PTA", I prefer "Quinsy")
A still highly Fatal Condition if not treated promptly, with Incision & Drainage, and NOT Antibiotics, Yoga, PT, or any of the other Hoops Insurance will make you jump through so you go away (and preferably die).
"Cardinal Sign" (I love "Cardinal Signs") is "Trismus" (which I almost like saying as much as "Cardinal Signs") which you have to pronounce like Bill Clinton would,
"Trizzzzzzzzzz-miss"
also with Fever, and "Hot Potato Voice", described as how someone would speak with a Hot Potato lodged in their throat, which as stupid as it sounds is accurate.
I've seen exactly 3 in 37 years of Practicing Medicine (eventually I'll get it right) and they all 1: Presented exactly like the Textbook says (Problem with Medicine, most Diseases don't read the Textbooks) 2: Were seen by a "Provider" the day before who DIDN'T prescribe Antibiotics because they didn't meet whatever Criteria they had to meet (My "Criteria" for prescribing Antibiotics?? I think the patient needs them) and 3: Umm, don't remember, don't you hate that?
Oh yeah, 3: if you can get them to open their mouth enough to look in, their Uvula will be pointing Away from the Abscess.
It's a big deal in Anesthesiology because you have to get control i.e put a Tube in the Airway before the Sturgeon pops the Abscess because you don't want all that Yuckiness going down into the Lungs, BUT, if you're not careful you can get Laryngospasm and not be able to get an Airway, and instead of "Going to Sleep" the Patient gets the "Big Sleep". "Textbook" Answer is "Awake Fiberoptic Intubation with ENT standing by to do Emergency Tracheotomy" which is like saying "Just sit back and wait on Ohtani's Fastball"
See, you're trying to slip a Tube in someones Trachea while they're awake, barely able to open their mouth, with this big Abscess by their Tonsil.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Scary shit. I remember my father suffering from it. Thankfully he had a real doctor who knew how to treat it (before everything had to be approved by insurance and he made house calls).
It also led him to quit smoking.

[Malika la Maize]

President Donald Trump has pardoned the former Tennessee House speaker and his former top aide in the state legislature just weeks after they were sentenced to prison on public corruption charges.

Glen Casada, who was ousted from his position as the Republican speaker of the Tennessee House just months into the job in 2019, received a phone call from Trump on Thursday informing him of the decision, said his attorney, Ed Yarbrough.

Casada, 66, was sentenced in September to three years in federal prison on charges related to a kickback and bribery arrangement involving the legislature’s state-funded constituent mailer program. Cade Cothren, 38, previously Casada’s chief of staff, was also convicted of fraud and related federal charges and sentenced to two and a half years in prison. They were due to report to prison later this month.

Cothren, who resigned amid allegations of making sexual advances to a state legislative intern, drug use in the state Capitol complex and sending racist text messages, also received a call from Trump informing him of the pardon, Yarbrough said. Both men had pleaded not guilty to federal charges

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/06/glen-casada-cade-cothren-trump-pardon/

[Frank Drackman]

Drug use in a Pubic Facility!!!!!!!! Who does he think he is? Hunter Biden!?!?! But if your panties are in such a bunch just pretend they're Black or Moose-lum and I'm sure you'll be fine with it.
and your link is behind a Pay Wall
I know, I know, I'm a made up Character, who doesn't talk good Engrish and my Mom had Sex with the entire Harlem Globetrotters (OK, mostly Wilt Chamberlain, and did you know that Henry Kissinger, Whoopi Goldberg, Bob Hope, Pope JPII and Nelson Mandela are all "Honorary Globetrotters"??)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

“I know, I know, I'm a made up Character, who doesn't talk good Engrish and my Mom had Sex with the entire Harlem Globetrotters”

For he himself has said it.

[Bwaaah]

Most of your comment would have been a worthy read, for a change, if it weren't a duplicate of somebody else's comment.

Call me a "member of the Frank Drackman Fan Club" if you think it helps you.

[Martinned]

Drain The Swamp!

[hobie]

Drain the prisons of sexual predators!

[shawn_dude]

Pointing out hypocrisy to MAGAts is pointless; they don't feel shame. They've already moved onto the next slogan/conspiracy theory.

Pointing out hypocrisy to everyone else just pours salt in the wound as our once-great nation slides into White Christian Nationalism reminiscent of the late 1930s.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A convicted killer who was sentenced to a decade behind bars for suffocating a Canadian tourist with sand was elected to the city council of a Maine city that inspired Stephen King’s “It.”"
https://nypost.com/2025/11/06/us-news/maine-elects-woman-convicted-of-killing-canadian-tourist-to-city-council-so-broken/

[Frank Drackman]

In her defense those Canadian Tourists are pretty obnoxious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Called her a squaw.

[Frank Drackman]

Well her name being "Jane Canadian-Tourist-Man-Killer" should have been a clue.

[Martinned]

Can't have convicted felons running for office, can we?

[Mr. Bumble]

A convicted killer.

[wvattorney13]

"suffocating a Canadian tourist with sand"

Is that still a crime in Maine?

[Malika la Maize]

A task force dedicated to fighting antisemitism is leaving the Heritage Foundation as the conservative think tank grapples with the fallout from its president’s defense of a Tucker Carlson podcast interview with a prominent white nationalist.

In an email obtained by The New York Times, four leaders of the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism wrote on Thursday that it was “important for us to continue the work of the N.T.F.C.A. outside the Heritage Foundation for a season.”

The Heritage Foundation, a pillar of the conservative movement for decades, had helped create and support the task force after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel, and the Israeli army’s subsequent destruction of Gaza. The group was founded to address antisemitism on the American political left.

But the foundation emerged last week in the center of a fierce debate about antisemitism in right-wing politics, after its president, Kevin Roberts, challenged the criticism of a mostly friendly interview Mr. Carlson conducted on his popular streaming show with Nick Fuentes, an avowedly racist antisemite with a large following.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/heritage-foundation-antisemitism-task-force.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Democrats elected Jay Jones an man with murder in his heart as AG in VA.

[Malika la Maize]

Seems like a fair amount of independents and Republicans elected him too (if only by not voting for his opponent).

Of course, no one elected the Heritage Foundation to anything so yours is a pretty irrelevant comment.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man!! Haven't you ever said you'd love to put a bullet in one of your Enemies Children's Haids???? I'm just happy he spells "Jay" correctly (remember "Jeh" Johnson from Sleepy Joe's Cabinet??)

Frank

[Krychek_2]

I'm beginning to think that my fellow Democrats have adopted the wrong strategy with respect to the shutdown.

There's an old saying that the difference between the two parties is that Democrats do things FOR people and Republicans do things TO people. By use of the Senate filibuster, Democrats have been able to prevent the GOP from inflicting nearly as much pain and suffering on people as they would like.

Well, maybe that's the wrong way to go about it. Maybe people who voted GOP should get what they voted for, good and hard. Let people lose their health insurance, social security and Medicare. Let the farmers go bankrupt (I read somewhere that between the migrant workers being deported and the tariffs, farm bankruptcies are already up 200% since Trump took office). Let tariffs drive inflation up and up and up. Sure, the stock market seems to like him, but there are far more Americans hurting than there are benefitting from the stock market.

Give people four years of what they voted for, and then ask them point blank: Now that you've experienced what the GOP wants to do to the country, are you really sure that's what you want?

[Mr. Bumble]

"I'm beginning to think ..."
A fact in in evidence in your comment.

[Krychek_2]

If it's such an unthinking comment, you should have no problem refuting it on the merits.

[Moderation4ever]

I think what you are talking about is already happening. The recent wins by the Democrats suggest that people have soured on the Presidents and Republicans. People are seeing that promises to reduce inflation are not happening, farmers are seeing exactly what you pointed out, ICE has become the administration's secret police, and taxes, as tariffs have been imposed. Redistricting may not matter and the Republicans could lose big in 2026.

[Poxigah146]

The recent wins don't suggest that. Those were all deep blue states.

[Moderation4ever]

What about Democratic pickups in the Mississippi legislature? Is Mississippi blue?

[Frank Drackman]

The Western half, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There's an old saying that the difference between the two parties is that Democrats do things FOR people and Republicans do things TO people."

It's not exactly a secret that people on the left assume everybody agrees that their policies are good, and that people only oppose them because they want to cause harm. But you rarely see it stated so baldly.

On the right, it's said that the Democrats are the Evil party, and the Republicans are the Stupid party. The problem being that the Evil party is also stupid, and the Stupid party is also evil.

At least the right recognize that there aren't very many good guys playing this game...

[Krychek_2]

Brett, I'm not going to take the time to deconstruct everything you said because it's mostly irrelevant to my point. Under the GOP, the farmers are losing their shirts, people are losing their health insurance and social safety net, prices are going up thanks to the tariffs. Whether the GOP intentionally sets out to hurt people or not is totally beside the point; the GOP *does* hurt people with their policies. Yet, that's what they voted for, so let's give it to them and then ask them again next election how happy they are with the results.

Suppose you're a farmer who voted for Trump over trans issues. Just between us, I happen to agree that trans athletes should not be competing in women's sports; that's an issue on which I split from my party. But is it an issue that justifies that farmer losing his farm to tariffs and migrant deportations? I don't think so, though YMMV. I think he stupidly voted against his own interests. But that's how democracy works.

[Poxigah146]

Prices going up because of tariffs is a bald-faced lie. Nearly all of the inflation is in services, which are unaffected by tariffs.

If a farmer loses his farm because of migrant deportations, that shows that his business model was not sustainable, as he couldn't run his business without taxpayer subsidies.

If a person is "hurt" because of a lack of health insurance, why not just provide everything for free with no taxes at all? Do you think that there is no point at which our debt becomes unmanageable?

If there is a point, where is it? $50 trillion? $75 trillion? $100 trillion?

[Krychek_2]

"Nearly all of the inflation is in services, which are unaffected by tariffs."

I just came from my weekly grocery run, and you're full of shit.

[Poxigah146]

So did I, and I haven't noticed any appreciable price increases outside of fruit, which vary seasonally anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

the left assume everybody agrees that their policies are good

Another incredible projection by Brett 'you secretly agree with me but are lying about it' Bellmore!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Farms don't go bankrupt from one bad year.

OTOH, any business -- be it a farm or Maine's Washington Country Government -- that didn't realize that Brandon's Covid Cash Largess was a one-time thing -- WILL be bankrupt within a year.

And as to illegals, if EVERYONE has to stop using them, prices will go up uniformly and no one farmer will be hurt. It will be like more expensive Diesel fuel or electricity -- farmers use a lot of both, but all farmers do so the price hike is uniform.

[bernard11]

And as to illegals, if EVERYONE has to stop using them, prices will go up uniformly and no one farmer will be hurt.

No. They all will be (assuming, dubiously, as you do, that all farmers use illegals.)

[shawn_dude]

Farms have their own special bankruptcy section that is a very generous form of reorganization. See: Chapter 12. Also, these days, most farms are corporate and large. The mom & pop farm of the past is largely gone and lives on only as a political tool.

Meanwhile, the budget CR bill requires 60 votes to pass and the GOP only has 53 votes assuming they all toe the line. The majority could sit down and make a deal, which is what majority parties have done on both sides of the isle since forever. But this majority thinks they can blame their shutdown on Democrats and that the public will buy their lies. (And, tbh, members of the public have been buying those lies for a while now related to "wokeism" and immigration, and ICE, and all sorts of things so it isn't irrational to think they'll buy this too.)

[JohnSmith97]

Always amazing to read about how when the (R) party is either the majority or the minority that any shutdowns are always their fault.

As always, the (D) party is blameless.

Wasn't the (D) party endlessly talking about eliminating the filibuster just a few years ago? Seems pretty hypocritical to be using it to keep the gov't shutdown for over a month.

Oh well, any actions that help with (D) party "leverage" will be cheered on by their followers.

[Moderation4ever]

I read today in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that a young man was sentenced to 3 year in prison for the accidental shooting of his friend. I have said it here and I will say it again. While the Constitution gives a person the right to a firearm it does not say that everyone should have one. If a person cannot handle a firearm they should not have one. I don't want a law I want a change in attitude that says to people, think before you buy a firearm. Why do you need one? What is best firearm for your need? Are their safety consideration that should make you reconsider?

[Poxigah146]

I would love that same change in attitude regarding having children out of wedlock and gay sex/marriage.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moderation4ever — Won't work. The less experience folks have with practical firearms use, the more confident they are that firearms are safe to have around.

[Bunny495]

Stop the press, I am agreeing with SL. As a Lifetime NRA member I am no longer shocked at the ignorance most citizens have when talking about firearms. I am sometimes ask to recommend which small arm a person should get and my response is always 'why do you want a gun?' Then I suggest the person turn that question around and ask it to me. My answer is I have a Tika Tac A1 I used to compete in the monthly Long Range Precision Rifle event at my local NRA range, I have a Volquartsen Black Mamba to compete in the monthly Action Pistol event at my local NRA range, I have a Volquartsen Scorpion to compete in the monthly Silhouette event at my local NRA range, I also sometimes travel to other similar events using these small arms, and finally I have a Hershal FN P90 because even they won't confirm or deny it reliable reports are that that is the weapon the US Secret Service uses to protect the pres and others. Bottom line is while I am a big 2A guy I would have no problem prohibiting gangbangers from owning any firearms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why do gangbangers avoid possessing FULLY automatic guns in crimes?

Hint: it's the "five years on and after" sentence for the "machine gun."

[David Nieporent]

Hint: it's not.

[JohnSmith97]

Cite?

[Moderation4ever]

Thank you for asking people the question of "why do you want a gun" , I wish that question was asked more often. I also wished more people asked "can you handle a gun responsibly". Because the kid in the newspaper going to prison couldn't be responsible and his friend is dead.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because happiness is a warm gun.

[Commenter_XY]

May I illustrate?

I have said it here and I will say it again. While the Constitution gives a person the right to bear a child it does not say that everyone should have one. If a person cannot handle a child they should not have one. I don't want a law I want a change in attitude that says to people, think before you bear a child. Why do you need one?

[Martinned]

While the Constitution gives a person the right to bear a child

Not the point, but: does it?

[John F. Carr]

Hard to tell. Did Griswold v. Connecticut (reproduction is a personal choice) overrule Buck v. Bell (three generations of imbeciles is enough)?

[hobie]

It was reported that about 60% of the MAGA attack ads in the NYC mayoral race were about trannies. I think you hayseeds are just beating a dead tranny at this point. But habits are hard to break, yes?

Mike Johnson:
""Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy dick from out my ass, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the Tranny “Nevermore.”"

[Dr. Ed 2]

The tranny rate in college is plummeting.

[DDHarriman]

BORN THAT WAY!!!

[Martinned]

Is this some new Newsmaxxx talking point or something?

[JohnSmith97]

Cite?

[Malika la Maize]

Grand Theft Auto VI has been delayed again, with a new release date of November 2026 for the action-filled franchise, Rockstar Games announced on Thursday.

Fans originally hoped to drive cars, commit crimes and escape the police among sun-drenched beaches and gleaming condominiums sometime this year based on the game’s pulsing debut trailer. Then Rockstar delayed the game until May 26, 2026.

It has now been pushed back another six months.

“We are sorry for adding additional time to what we realize has been a long wait, but these extra months will allow us to finish the game with the level of polish you have come to expect and deserve,” Rockstar said in a statement. “We want to thank you again for your patience and support.”
https://www.nytimes.com/article/grand-theft-auto-6.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"Fans originally hoped to drive cars, commit crimes and escape the police ..."
Guess they'll have to continue to do it for real in Dem run cities.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe they're updating it to reflect the current state of the law where pardons for beating cops into an early grave are possible and crimes that mirror what powerful politicians think is acceptable practice (like fraud, embezzlement, etc) are forgiven. The wealthier you get in the game, the harder it would become to get a conviction against you. It's the MAGA upgrade.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which cops were beaten into an early grave?

[Martinned]

Copying this across from LinkedIn. The author is a law firm partner. The judgment he is talking about is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf

The judgment dismisses Getty Images’ claim of secondary infringement on the basis that the model does not contain or reproduce the works it was trained on. In paragraph 758(viii), Justice Smith was clear that while an infringing copy can be an article under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, a trained AI model is not one. It is not a library of images or text. It is a network of statistical weights and parameters that describe relationships, not the data itself.

That technical conclusion has implications far beyond copyright. It potentially collides with the EDPB’s recent opinion on personal data in AI models, which said that a model can only be considered anonymous if “the likelihood, either direct or probabilistic, of extracting personal data” is insignificant.
Justice Smith’s ruling suggests there is nothing to recover because the data isn’t there. The EDPB opinion said “… information from the training data set, including personal data, may still remain ‘absorbed’ into the parameters of the model, namely represented through mathematical objects … [they] may still retain the original information of those data…”

This reflects two competing worldviews about what AI models actually are. To some, the EDPB could be seen as regarding AI as if models function like an abstract mathematical database, holding and potentially revealing personal data. The English High Court has recognised that they do not operate that way. An AI model is just a bunch of numbers. Without an AI system - can it produce anything?

I find it striking that much of Europe’s regulatory discussion about AI assumes that data somehow sits dormant inside a model, waiting to be extracted. That assumption underpins recent privacy guidance, transparency obligations, and even proposed audit mechanisms. Training involves learning patterns, not storing content. The distinction matters, both legally and scientifically.

Our legal systems are struggling to keep pace with the technical realities of machine learning. Both copyright and data protection frameworks rest on old notions of copying and storage. When those notions meet systems that learn rather than store, legal coherence breaks down.

[Martinned]

For context, the EDPB is the European Data Protection Board.

https://www.edpb.europa.eu/edpb_en

[John F. Carr]

I like the description of an LLM as a lossy compression algorithm.

[shawn_dude]

Okay, that's fun. +1

[Poxigah146]

It's one thing to think Trump has not done a good job rolling out the tariffs, but it is insane to me how so many otherwise smart people are okay with hollowing out our manufacturing base so that they can get cheap shit form overseas. Meanwhile, every country on which Trump has imposed a tariff has higher tariffs on us.

The level of treason from the elite of both parties, and nearly all Democrats is shocking.

[John 4]

Some people object to the illegality.

[Poxigah146]

Then they'd be lobbying Congress to ratify them.

[Moderation4ever]

What people are is smart enough to understand basic economics. Something you seem to lack. We no longer live in that 1950s when much of the post WWII industrial base was located in the US. Many other countries have step up to join in a world wide economy. Some as the new manufacturer of goods. Others demanding a fair price for resources the US got for pennies on the dollar.

[David Nieporent]

but it is insane to me how so many otherwise smart people are okay with hollowing out our manufacturing base so that they can get cheap shit form overseas.

But again, the "hollowing out of our manufacturing base" is a fabrication and/or delusion. While manufacturing has taken a big hit because of Trump's policies, before him our nation's manufacturing output was at all time highs.

And when I buy a product or service, it is because I want to have and use said product or service — not because I want to keep a factory worker or service provider employed. "Cheap shit from overseas" is an unalloyed good.

Meanwhile, every country on which Trump has imposed a tariff has higher tariffs on us.

Once again: Trump has imposed tariffs on Americans, not on any other country. But even if we correct your statement for that misunderstanding, your claim is just stupid and false. The tariffs he has imposed on Americans who import goods from other countries are frequently higher than the tariffs other countries have imposed on their citizens who import goods from us.

The level of treason

Buying stuff is not treason.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump targeting countries more than goods also shows how much this isn't about securing American manufacturing versus Trump liking important people kissing his ass.

The stories MAGA tell themselves to justify what they're obligated to support.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : " ... Trump liking important people kissing his ass."

Not to belabor the obvious, but that's because he's a hollow Nothing inside. It's no exaggeration to say he's a nullity as a person by any positive human quality. Fred sure did a number on his boy, didn't he? Has there ever been a major politician more of a wreck of a human being than Trump?

[loki13]

In fairness, the reason Trump has people kiss his ass is because it's the largest and easiest target for them to hit.

[grb]

Ouch!

[Bunny495]

There is more to this than the simple post you made.

Not much question America won WWII by producing aero planes, tanks, ships, Jeeps, and such faster than the Axis powers could destroy them. Fast forward to today's world and while it was only a short time ago that America dominated space, computers, war arms, and technology in general that has and still is changing. There are compelling reasons to keep/protect some industries for national security. Same thing goes for jobs related to making these things.

No question that Trump's tariffs could help in this matter, as well as he could be doing a better job of rolling them out.

[Poxigah146]

Yes, but the people lying about tariffs always being passed on to consumers is really getting old, and shows either ignorance of price elasticity or bad faith, take your pick.

[shawn_dude]

Trump's tariffs cannot help if he hasn't addressed the supply chain issues. In the same way an incandescent lightbulb can heat a room, the tariffs can apply incentives to keep or start manufacturing in the US. However, the cost/benefit of using an old-fashioned lightbulb to heat a room says to buy and LED bulb and a space heater instead.

If Trump was interested in bringing more manufacturing into the US, he wouldn't have sent ICE to raid the Hyundai plant in Georgia (at least not before it opened.) And using anti-economic methods to grow sectors of the economy like forcing manufacturers to purchase higher priced inputs, isn't going to work or won't work for very long. The Biden Chips Act is a better method for getting this done if it was his goal. Tariffs are harmful to US businesses and could result in economic contraction--which is starting to look like the way things are moving absent the AI bubble holding the economic numbers up. Not to mention other shots to our collective economic feet by tanking a multibillion dollar solar and wind energy industry that was growing in the US, reducing demand for lithium ion car batteries, raising energy prices, and placing thousands of American consumers on unemployment.

[hobie]

I know I keep bringing up Animal Farm because every day brings something new that is analogous. But I think I finally got all my analogies right. So here once again is the final paragraph properly reimagined where the the dumb animals are the MAGA hillbillies, the pigs are their politicians and the humans are no longer the politicians but rather the billionaire class, and the farm house in which they dine is now an opulent ballroom

MAGA Farm
"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

[Poxigah146]

When I think of animal farm, I think of Pelosi and her corrupt husband trading stocks.

[Sarcastr0]

Exchanges in Washington, D.C., and Virginia have stocked Trump-branded wine, allowing his family’s business to earn revenue from sales on federal property.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2025/11/06/trump-wine-coast-guard-exchanges-stores-federal-property-government/

All those arguments about Biden...MAGA never really cared. Oh they were passionate enough, but good faith is alien to them.

[hobie]

Damn that's crazy. Anyway, what about them Epstein Files?

[Bunny495]

The better question is why have both the dems and pubs failed to release them. This is an equal opportunity coverup.

[loki13]

No, that's not actually the better question.

We went over this before.

1. Biden (despite the hyperventilating) is not IN THE EPSTEIN FILES. Trump is.

2. Trump ran on a platform of releasing the Epstein files.

3. Trump's AG said she had the client list on her desk.

4. Trump's DOJ tasked the FBI and DAGs with thousands of hours in the spring reviewing the Epstein files (and, um, flagging all instances of Trump's name).

5. Trump had a photo op of right-wing influencers on the White House Lawn (well, back before it became Trump's House of Marble & Gold & Cheezburgers) with folders labelled "Epstein Files" this spring.

Do I need to continue?

It's kind of like saying, "The better question is why both the dems and the pubs have failed to cut taxes enough on billionaires!!!???!!"

It's a basic failure of reasoning.

[JohnSmith97]

So Biden didn't release them because he wasn't in them, but Trump won't release them because he is in them.

Now explain why Biden didn't release them if Trump is in them.

[not guilty]

Whataboutism and bleating "both sides" is often all that the MAGA cult has. It should translate to confessing "I got bupkis regarding my side."

[hobie]

We didn't release it because we didn't give a shit about it. It was just more MAGA hysteria to us. But the day Trump suddenly said we all have to stop talking about it, our collective antennae went up and we said, 'Well, well, well...what have we here?!'

[Martinned]

It's so petty, given that he's already raking in billions from selling Trumpcoin to every dictator and shady foreign business man in sight, and given that $230m "damages" claim, and all the other "court settlement" payoffs he's already received. Why still bother with all the nickle and dime corruption? The only explanation I can think of is that it comes as naturally as breathing.

[loki13]

Le marais, c'est moi.
-Donald Trump

Okay, that's not fair. Trump wouldn't understand the French or get the reference.

[grb]

Martinned : "It's so petty...."

Petty indeed, given Trump just sold a pardon for two billion dollars invested in his crypto business. Per my guess, he sees retail pardons as a fabulous new growth market to pursue.

[shawn_dude]

Well, it makes him richer but also pisses off the libs which keeps his voters and sycophantic GOP politicians happy...which makes him money, ad infinitum.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden just Bidening around DC.

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/11/06/joe-biden-sings-happy-birthday-with-w-l-students-after-va-square-dinner/

He was absolutely too old to be President. Seems like contra many of the posters around here he's not in some vegetative state, however.

[DDHarriman]

Woah, his handlers send him out in public just once in months and it's living proof he was NEVER suffering dementia while he was President!!

So true. I just love The Narrative. I never have to think. Just go "Democrats Golden Heart" "Republicans Black Heart" and work backwards from there.

[David Nieporent]

proof he was NEVER suffering dementia

So your contention is that he was, but that he got better?

[DDHarriman]

That's how you reason about these facts about Biden and his history?

That this one limited public appearance proves he recovered from dementia?

In your mind, is that really a reasonable conclusion?

[David Nieporent]

No; the reasonable conclusion is that he was never suffering from dementia. Slowed down, sure. Dementia, no.

[Mr. Bumble]

"No; the reasonable conclusion is that he was never suffering from dementia. "
Sure, he was always dumber than a box of rocks.

[loki13]

It's interesting, isn't it? I also think Biden was too old to be President.

Do you know who else it too old to be President? Trump. We don't need octogenarian Presidents. I'd argue we don't need septuagenarians either.

I've met people who are 80+ and watch Fox news all the time at maximum volume and cheat at golf and complain about how the "coloreds" are making America worse and rant about whatever they saw most recently with unhinged certitude. It's just ... we don't normally elect them President. (We do see them comment here pretty frequently though, don't we?)

Anyway, also a reminder that Biden is currently struggling with cancer, so any Bidening about for him is just a bonus.

[Martinned]

Sanna Marin was on The Daily Show this week (she has a book out). She was 34 when she became prime minister of Finland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQI1gpmGn3g

The incoming Dutch prime minister is 38.

[Moderation4ever]

I did not vote for either a septuagenarian or and octogenarian, in either the 2024 primary or national election. I thought it was wrong then and now.

[Frank Drackman]

Why? are you an Ill-legal?? (At Bushwood), Convicted Felon?? (in some States) or Mentally Incompetent?? (you can take the 5th) or have a Dishonorable Discharge?? (better than a Painful Discharge)
You've got the Right to Vote, and I'll fight to your Death defending that.
I thought I was a big deal, voting for "W" in Florida in 2000 (and Absentee, Ironic, dontcha think?)
But even if it was my vote that gave us 8 years of War, Famine, and Pestilence (if Dick Chaney doesn't qualify as "Pestilence" they should just retire the word) there were 537 others who could say the same thing.
As bad as "W"/Chaney was, can you imagine 8 yrs of AlGore??

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I did not say I did not vote, what I said is that I voted for persons younger than 70 years of age.

[Swede425]

Does this mean he won't be able to count on your support for his third term?

[Don Nico]

"We don't need octogenarian Presidents. I'd argue we don't need septuagenarians either. "
Amen, amen!

[Commenter_XY]

Are you thinking the optimum age band for POTUS is 45-64? This is when you're at your peak function, cognitively. That is partly what I am taking away from your comment. I don't disagree. Old people are slow to adopt technology or innovate, they tend to be inflexible.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it makes me a bad liberal, but I really like the idea of reviving and adding some certainty and contours to nondelegation. Or at least overdelegation.

It makes pragmatic and structural sense.

[DDHarriman]

A new position you've conveniently taken when a MAGA administration is in place, which you're revert back to your Imperial Presidency hot take once a Democrat is back in office.

If you're anything, it's being consistently goal-driven.

[Martinned]

It's a question of statutory interpretation. Let's not make it a constitutional issue. The courts should be trying to find out whether Congress meant to delegate a given power or not, using sensible tools that also apply in other contexts. The only constitutional angle I'd bring in is that I might include certain presumptions, such as a presumption that Congress doesn't delegate the taxing power, and/or other powers that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as being the core preserve of Congress.

[Sarcastr0]

I 100% agree nondelegation is not required for the tariffs question before the Court.

But
1) A decent chunk of the Court seems reluctant to rule on the emergency declaration issue.
2) I like nondelegation; I think it's neat. I have since I took admin in law school.

[David Nieporent]

It's a question of statutory interpretation. Let's not make it a constitutional issue. The courts should be trying to find out whether Congress meant to delegate a given power or not, using sensible tools that also apply in other contexts.

No; you're making what's a common mistake. The non-delegation doctrine is a constitutional one, not a question of statutory interpretation. It says that Congress cannot delegate certain things to the executive. The major questions doctrine is one of statutory interpretation; it says that we should not presume that Congress meant to delegate a major power to the president unless it explicitly said so very clearly.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you like the MQD?

It's the legal lay of the land so I'm all about arguing it. But it's both nebulous and explicitly atextual, so I am not a fan.

[David Nieporent]

I do like it. Again, as an interpretive canon — which is how I view it — it doesn't really make sense to call it atextual; all such canons are. It's just a version of the clear statement rule that applies to lots of situations.

[loki13]

"The major questions doctrine is one of statutory interpretation"

...Isn't that an issue between Barrett and Gorsuch?

Barrett argues that it is merely a question of statutory interpretation, that when a statute is ambiguous, MQD counsels you to read it in a limiting fashion.

Gorsuch, OTOH, views the MQD doctrine as more expansive- it's not just an issue of interpretation, it's more of a subset of non-delegation.

It's more nuanced than that, but I think that they have a doctrinal difference in their views.

[David Nieporent]

I think Gorsuch just misuses MQD when he means non-delegation. (Or, alternatively, that he knows that non-delegation won't attract the same votes as MQD will.) But has there ever been a time when his approach caused the outcome to be different than Barrett's?

[loki13]

... I mean, I think a lot of people are taking Barrett's concurrence in Biden v. Nebraska as "what MQD really means."

Which ... I happen to think that it's a better approach- just a way of thinking about statutory interpretation!
'
But it's still just a single justice's concurrence and explanation as to why Barrett believes that the MQD .... properly applied, is just a textualist approach. Citing, of course, a prior law review article she wrote.

I don't think we can explicitly state that this is "the Court's" approach to MQD at this point. Am I wrong?

[Martinned]

No mistake. My point was that neither doctrine should be read into the constitution. I wasn't making a statement about what the Supreme Court actually does or will do.

[David Nieporent]

But I repeat: the MQD isn't "read into the constitution"; it's a canon of construction.

[Martinned]

Is it, though? My sense is that loki is right that there's disagreement on this point, and that the Gorsuch view is the one most commonly advocated by conservatives.

[wvattorney13]

"unless it explicitly said so very clearly."

That's sort of the criticism. If Congress had said so explicitly and clearly, there wouldn't be a dispute. In any reasonable situation where courts are involved, it must be that practically the President loses under the MQD.

And I think it is right. The typical statute under consideration is that in response to X, the President may do A, B, and C. If you construe B to be "anything the President wants" that doesn't comport with the statute.

The listing of A, B, and C implies a limitation on power. If Congress wanted the President to be able to do anything he wanted, Congress would have said that instead of cryptically back dooring it through an A, B, C list.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's the sort of systematic interpretation one might do to establish the nature and scope of a delegation. Just like there's the mischief rule, legislative history, etc.

[DDHarriman]

Here's my spin on the classic joke, The Aristocrats.

Step 1. Ban US citizens & businesses from fishing Walleye in the Great Lakes.
Step 2. Import Walleye caught in the Great Lakes by Canadian fishermen.
Step 3. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars each year restocking Walleye for Canadian fishermen to catch and sell to Americans who are banned from catching them.

The Democrats!

[Frank Drackman]

Is it just me or does (the) Zoran M. look like he could be Uday or Qusay Hussein's younger brother???

[Swede425]

I was just over a mile away from those two on the day they joined the non-breathing. A crap ton of Bradleys came barreling down the road and our patrol pulled over so they could pass us. Dust everywhere. Several minutes later the fireworks started. We had no idea what was going on until we got back to the FOB. It was loud and took a while.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow.
No Sarcasm,
Its like I'm watching an Ohtani Homerun, a Solar Eclipse, Natalie Portman in "Heat", Jay Leno's "GTD" Mustang, (which I thought looked pretty sharp, checked out the price, starts at $327,960 (because $328,000 puts it out of reach for Joe Six-Pack) You know, a thing of rare beauty.
Too bad Uday/Qusay bought it, would have had a great future on (the) Zoran's Staff.

Frank

[ReaderY]

President Jack D. Ripper, convinced that rock and roll music and fluoridation of water are Communist plots to corrupt our youth and our precious bodily fluds respectively, invokes his emergency foreign policy powers ad the authority Congress delegated him to combat both the “British Invasion” and the importation of foreign fluoride.

1. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act, he uses his authority to combat invasions to proclaim British Invasion rock musicans enemies of the United States, and orders them deported to Central American concentration camps. He shoots down airplanes and boats suspected of carrying them.

2. He similarly proclams foreign fluoride importers to constitute an invasion and orders them imprisoned as enemy aliens and boats and planes suspected of transporting fluorides shot down.

3. Declaring an economic emergency that cripples the United States’ capacity to be a world power, he imposes high tarriffs on British rock music and fluoride-containing products.

If President Trump’s position is correct, could President Ripper do any or all of these things? If not, what distinguishes the hypothetical from Mr. Trump’s position?

[loki13]

Simple. President Ripper is a chump. Under (3), President Trump would declare tariffs on every country in the world and all their products, not just narrowly targeted tariffs on specific products in order to deal with a problem.

Seriously, President Ripper needs to MAKE AMERICA A KINGDOM AGAIN!

[Frank Drackman]

In one of the few things they've done right most European nations stopped Fluorinating Water years ago.
Funny thing (besides the Japs making such great Radios) is the Actor who played General Ripper, Sterling Hayden, was a big Pinko Commie Rat himself.

Frank

[loki13]

Senior Deputy Attorney General Khetan Bhirud complained that the shutdown was having a negative impact on the DOJ.

....apparently, they are now able to only generate 2/3 of the lies they were able to previously, but they will partner with Peter Thiel to see if AI can help them lie more prodigiously.

[loki13]

Also, just a reminder to all those commenters here who love to scream about how people elected Mamdani (as a MAYOR, not even for a statewide position) ... because of how important the free market is in America.

This is Trump, at a public appearance, talking to the CEO of Novo Nordisk:
"Maybe you should give us a piece of the company like I've been asking for."

FFS. Try, just for a minute, to stop obsessing about what people are doing locally in places you don't even live in and try and pay a little bit of attention to the President who openly picks winners (his buddies and friends) and losers (his "enemies" which includes the majority of the American people) and demands ownership of companies if they want to avoid enforcement action or get government approval.

[Martinned]

...and then he strongarmed Novo Nordisk into giving American consumers a price cut. Because apparently it's the President's job to intervene in market prices.

Wasn't there some kind of claim that Mamdani is a communist because he thinks housing prices are too high?

[Frank Drackman]

His housing prices certainly aren't. I think the claim is Man-damn-he is a Communist is because his policies are right out of the Marx Handbook, and I'm not talking Groucho.

[Commenter_XY]

Strong-armed? Whachubetalkinbout Willis?

[grb]

Donald Trump has heard the voters and is acting decisively to address their concerns. How, you ask? By repeated and continual lying of course.

Since Tuesday, he's repeatedly said we have two-dollar gas. On multiple occasions he's bragged about Walmart's holiday meal being cheaper this year, ignoring the fact that it's 29% smaller by quantity and all generic brands vs the name products of previous years. "I don’t want to hear about the affordability, because right now, we’re much less,” he fumed, as if voters in supermarkets won't believe their lying eyes on his say-so. A ordinary citizen and long-term supporter pleaded with him to do something about prices, but she just got the long rambling babble about what a "special" word "groceries" is.

Perhaps Trump thinks she should feel honored. After all, he gave the same long braindead rant with the UAE President sitting next to him - the latter staring down at his shoes in silent embarrassment over the United States' humiliation.

All in all, Trump's strategy doesn't strike me as effective. It worked with his Cabinet to be sure, with Vance alongside him gravely nodding his head to the litany of lies. It'll work with MAGA because they're all dupes. But ordinary people? Not a chance.

[Martinned]

It worked with his Cabinet to be sure

It helps that most of them haven't pumped their own gas since Reagan was president.

[Mr. Hook]

A sincere question (as in, no gotcha intended) for those who consider(ed) themselves Reaganites: In your view, is Trump/MAGA an extension of Reagan or a distinct break? What's the criteria you rely on for your view?

[Martinned]

I think there is no coherent ideology to Trumpism as to the *what* of their policies, but only as to the *how*.

The "what" is "whatever Trump thinks will please voters at any particular time, whatever is his weird hobby horse, and whatever his handlers want that he can't be bothered to form an opinion on". The "how" is always "unconstrained power for the Regime, with no interference from Congress, the courts, or anyone else".

Viewed that way, Trump isn't an extension of anything that came before. Reagan's political views were socially and economically conservative, and reasonably coherently so. His understanding of the constitutional limits on his power, and his worry about them, were not great. But then he wasn't necessarily a very smart man.

The only thing that unites Reagan and Trump is that they both have/had a great ability to connect with Americans without actually saying anything coherent.

[loki13]

I ... am going to jump in ... and defend Reagan from some of those points.

Obviously, Reagan was a great communicator and had charisma. But he was also not JUST some actor. He had a long history of heavy ideological involvement, from opposing Medicare to serving as the Governor of California- he was the heir to Goldwater.

But he was fundamentally a different type of person than Trump was. Let me list the ways-
1. Reagan truly believed in America (the "shining city on a hill") as a force of good. ...I mean, I don't agree with a lot of what he did (and his response to HIV is hard to forget) but he fundamentally believed in the innate goodness of people and Americans. That doesn't mean he didn't stoop to politics (expanding on the Southern Strategy, for example), but he truly thought he was in it for the country, not for himself. Unlike Trump.

2. Reagan believed in working with the other side. He and Tip O'Neill had a lot of battles, but they also consistently found areas to agree on and work together on.

3. Reagan was a reaction to the '70s. The amount of regulation that we had back then ... it's hard to remember. But also? He was building on what CARTER had done (seriously, look it up). Trump enters into a time when regulation is actually already really low, as are taxes, and so on.

4. Reagan believed that government should get out of the way. Trump believes that government should serve him.

And so on. MAGA is a complete break from what came before.

[Martinned]

That seems right. (And not very different from what I meant to say.)

[Mr. Hook]

"2. Reagan believed in working with the other side. He and Tip O'Neill had a lot of battles, but they also consistently found areas to agree on and work together on."

Despite a reputation amongst his opponents as some kind of hardliner, he was a rather old-fashioned deal-making pol. His attitude was to go in with 10 demands, but only expected to win on his top 3. He was fine to compromise on the others to let the other guy be able to tell his side they won some issues and to keep a good working relationship for the future. Whether or not you agreed with his policies, that attitude toward governance—that it was about maintaining constructive relationships—is sorely missed.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with everything you said, but to be fair, in the 1980s the ideological sorting of the parties was not complete. There were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and there was actual overlap between the two: the more conservative Democrats were more conservative than the more liberal Republicans. As a result, there were many fewer pure party line votes and it was thus easier to engage in cross-party dealmaking.

[Mr. Hook]

Fair point and accepted. While I could never imagine voting for Reagan because of his policies (plus being both underage at the time and Canadian), I've come to respect him as a politician, to appreciate that if he wasn't the Republican Moses that his admirers portrayed him as, neither was he the jingoistic dolt caricature of liberal imagination.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reagan was big business and management, Trump is more small business and worker orientated.

Capital gains taxes versus taxes on overtime and tips. They are both taxes but look at the difference in who is most concerned about each,

[Martinned]

"Small business"??? Are you nuts?

Reagan's instictive sympathy was with small town America. He'd convinced himself he was a true blue cowboy. Trump's instinctive sympathy is with bullies and big business.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-tech-leaders-unite-american-ai-dominance/

[David Nieporent]

I definitely didn't consider myself a Reaganite — though I sure miss him now! — but I'll answer anyway: I consider Trump a distinct break in virtually every sense. Their ideologies and worldviews were/are entirely different.

Actually, that's a bit misleading, because I don't think Trump really has an ideology at all, besides l'état, c'est moi. He has virtually no fixed philosophical commitments, other than the notion that the world is zero sum. But if one could distill his MAGA positions into an ideology, it would be entirely different than Reagan's.

Because Trump is a zero summer, they're entirely different in personality, also; Reagan was a sunny optimist, while Trump is an apocalyptic doomer. Reagan was self-confident; Trump is an insecure narcissist second-hander.

[Martinned]

Yes. "The world is zero sum" is probably the closest thing Trump has to an ideology.

[grb]

Martinned : "Yes. "The world is zero sum" is probably the closest thing Trump has to an ideology."

But once again, Trump is more symptom than cause. The entire Right is driven by Zero-Sum - it's the very fuel that keeps them going. It's one of the ways they find whiny perpetual victimhood everywhere they look : Somebody somewhere is getting something they should have - with that somebody preferably having a darker skin tone. It's the party of the next-door Jones, always seething with rage over something their neighbor has or is "getting away with".

[wvattorney13]

I'm almost 50 but I've heard this about every single Republican president in my life.

This current guy is a Nazi, not a principled statesman like the last Republican president. Not saying that guy was perfect, but he was leaps and bounds better than the current guy.

People said that when I was a kid. "Yeah, that Nixon guy was a crook but he's got nothing on Reagan. Reagan's going to get us into a nuclear war with Russia!"

Remember when Bush II was a war criminal?

[loki13]

Meanwhile, every Democratic president is going to make America Commie and put people in FEMA Camps, just like the last one did!

Yeah, I get it, you project on to others what you want to hear. But that's not ACTUALLY the history. No one thought Bush II was a war criminal in the 2000 election. Do you remember?

No, the objection was that he was ... kind of a lightweight and unserious and good ol' boy who was only good to have a beer with (although he was a product of Andover, Yale, and Harvard - something his campaign worked hard to keep under wraps).

Then it was that he wasn't elected with any mandate, because, you know, he didn't win the popular vote and the whole Florida business.

That was what people thought.

Of course, after 9/11, he had a massive spike of popularity. That popularity receded because of the whole "torture" and "invading Iraq*" things, and the capstone of the Great Recession.

But Nazi? Nope.

Or Romney? There were the usual political attacks against him (binders full of women, dog on car, etc.) but not a Nazi. Like, seriously?

Reagan? It was trickle down economics, too far right, and, yes, going to get us into nuclear conflict with the USSR. But ... not a Nazi.

Were people calling Bush Sr. a Nazi? Nope. Dole? Nope.

Also, isn't it kind of weird that if we look at all those past people- none of them seem like they would have been Trumpists? Those that lived to see it certainly weren't, and those that died before ... well, I think we know.

But you, obviously, understand that Trump is being subjected to the exact same unfair attacks because he is the exact same type of Republican as those past individuals.

Why are you slandering their good names by tying them to Trump?

*That was afterwards. There was support before, although we tend to forget.

[Martinned]

For the record, it's not our fault that the GOP reliably nominates a worse candidate every time. (Or, to be more precise, every time they made an effort to nominate someone who wasn't more evil than the last guy, they lost. From Bush sr. on down it's been a steady decline.)

And yes, Bush jr. is absolutely a war criminal who should be in prison. Just because Cheney escaped his just deserts, doesn't mean Bush should.

[Jmaie]

I’ve only paid attention to politics since Reagan, but it seems like both parties have nominated successfully worse candidates each cycle.

If our nominating process was to give every eligible voter a piece of paper and a pencil, and ask them to write down the names of the five people they would most like to see as president, does anyone think that anyone since Kennedy (and maybe Reagan) would have garnered more than a tiny fraction of the total question?

[ReaderY]

Very much a distinct break.

Reagan worked with and showed public respect for the Democratic House speaker of the day, Tip O’Neal. He strongly disagreed with Democrats on many things, but he did not characterize them as traitors or enemies. He likewise strongly believed in publicly respecting and cooperating with traditional American allies. He regarded democratic countries as America’s natural friends.

He attempted to be pleasant when dealing with the public. He sought to project optimism and work with people, not to blame enemies and seek vengeance.

More fundamentally while his opponents strongly disagreed with him, they believed he was doing what he thought was best for the country, rather than seeking to advance personal power or gain.

Certain seemingly minor incidents are telling. When an American sailor raped a Japanese teenager, he promptly fired an admiral who had downplayed the incident and failed to show sufficent sympathy for the Japanese, and apologized profusely to the Japanese people. Trump on the other hand has consistently acted to protect American soldiers accused of (and even convicted of) abusing foreign civilians, and apologies for acts of abuse don’t seem to be part of his thought process.

To think any of this has anything to do with their policy positions or ideology, what brand of suits or chewing gum they liked, or simiar superficial and completely itrelevant matters, is to utterly fail to grasp what is going on.

[Commenter_XY]

Every POTUS after Reagan was a distinct break from Reagan.

[loki13]

Fun fact as people see the continuing deterioration in our country (hope you don't have any flights).

This shutdown is the longest in history at 37 days.
It beats out the second longest in history, during the last Trump administration, at 34 days.

That's right- Trump 2 is worse than Trump 1! It's ... math.

Anyway (I know, most people don't understand jokes here) ...

The next longest? 21 days. That was the Clinton/Gingrich showdown (it was both a showdown and a shutdown) in 1995.

The fourth longest? 16 days. That was at the beginning of the second term of Obama.

No other shutdown has been more than 3 days.*

*There was a five day shutdown in 1995, but technically that was also part of the Gingrich/Clinton showdown. It was five days, a short deal, and then 21 days. But even if you take out the pause, the combined total of 26 days is still less than either Trump 1 or Trump 2.

Final reminder-
Unlike any prior shutdown, during both Trump 1 and Trump 2, the GOP had full control of all branches of government. I mean, WOW! I'm not even mad, because that's impressive! Now, I would say that Trump 1 is a little different, because it occurred after the 2018 midterms so the GOP knew it was losing the House (although it occured before they actually did), so I will accept that it wasn't nearly as stupid as this one. But still!

[DDHarriman]

They have total control over the government but can't pass any bills without Democrats!!

Your understanding of reality is SO ACCURATE!! lmao how did you out retard Queenie?

[Martinned]

What's stopping the GOP from doing whatever it wants?

[DDHarriman]

The Senate rules that require 60 votes to break a filibuster and there aren't 60 GOP Senators? That's what's stopping the GOP from doing whatever it wants.

In the US, there are two houses, the House and the Senate. It takes both houses to pass legislation and then the signature of the President. If it can't get through the Senate because of Democrats, the President can't sign the bill and make it law.

How do you not know this? This is basic shit. Please consider not commenting on US politics when you are this ignorant. You don't even understand basic US civics. 3rd graders in the US know more about US politics than you do.

[Martinned]

What stops the Senate from changing that rule?

[DDHarriman]

Why are you talking about US politics when you don't know even the barest basics?

[Martinned]

I know plenty. But my impression is that you don't. Hence this attempt at Socratic teaching.

[Frank Drackman]

Teaching what? Sodomy?

[DDHarriman]

Did your King amd State Church approve of your illegal social media comments?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Martinned deserves an answer -- the Senate was designed to be a drogue anchor on popular opinion and angst. Hence it was established that it should take 60 votes to cut off debate via cloture.

That has served the country well over the years -- but for some trickery that SCOTUS should have identified as such, it would have saved us from the disaster that is Obamacare.

The problem is that to filibuster, one used to actually have to be talking -- and at this point, the Dems would be so exhausted that they'd give up. But the checks on the tyranny of the majority are important to retain.

[Martinned]

That is not, in fact, an answer to my question.

Incidentally, you might like to know that the House used to have a filibuster rule similar to the Senate's, but got rid of it in 1890.

[wvattorney13]

"No, Martinned deserves an answer -- the Senate was designed to be a drogue anchor on popular opinion and angst. Hence it was established that it should take 60 votes to cut off debate via cloture."

Sorry, but this is just revisionist history. There was never an automatic supermajority required for regular legislation until this century.

The reputation of the Senate as a cooling down body was from the founding era fact that senators were learned statesmen who were not tied to the popular will because they were elected by legislatures. They also had a rule of unlimited debate but that always had a practical limitation on it---senators could debate as a long as they wanted, but that is a finite time for everyone.

Many recent presidents: Reagan, Clinton, Bush I got their legislative victories with less than 60 votes in the Senate but there was an understanding that the people elected a president and he deserved a vote. Democrats could have killed the Clarence Thomas nomination with a filibuster. They chose not to.

The current rule is just obstructionist. Nobody can do anything.

[Frank Drackman]

45 DemoKKKrats.
I admit, I'd arrest all 45 for "Suspicion of Aggravated Mopery with Intent to Creep", have the Senate declare the "Presence of a Quorum", and pass the Budget or whatever it is that's keeping Airliners from flying into each other.
Then let them out.
Or not, I think Eric Balls-Smell could use some time in DC lockup.

Frank

[grb]

loki13 : "Unlike any prior shutdown...."

There's another thing unique about this shutdown besides the long list of facts above. In all previous cases, politicians of both parties occasionally lowered their feuding postures to make pieties how they want to see the standoff resolved for the good of the American people. But in this case, Trump has frequently gloated over the shutdown and bragged about the suffering it caused.

Of course Righties are whining about being blamed for this fiasco just like they whine about everything. They are, after all, the Permanent Victimhood Party. But what do they expect? Trump is making this into another personal kindergarten squabble, just like he reduces everyone to his childish immature level. The voters see that.

[Sarcastr0]

Things the GOP will pay for during a shutdown, dubious legality and all: military pay (for now), Argentina bailout, private jets for Cabinet Officials to do whatever they want in, ICE thuggery, DoJ's failfest.

Meanwhile, Trump's saying the priorities of what to cut the funding of is tailored to go towards 'Democrat programs.'

Things I guess are Democrat programs: food for lower income families, air traffic controllers pay, health insurance affordability for middle and lower class Americans, the rest of the US government.

In the meantime, the President has a busy schedule of lavish parties and tearing down part of the White House.

There's a reason why no one is buying this shutdown is on the Dems. Way to go Trump.

[loki13]

Yeah, it's really hard to pin the blame on the Democrats (and it's easy to understand why it's failing) when the President seems to take such personal glee in the suffering of Americans ...

While also bragging about his marble and gold monstrosity of a ballroom (ugh, it is so second-rate) and spends the majority of one day sending pictures of his new gold and marble bathroom.

Not to mention having a Gatsby Party the night before SNAP benefits run out. A little too on-the-nose.

Trump runs the government like he ran his charities- a personal piggy bank to enrich himself, not to help anyone else.

[Armchair]

"The GOP had full control of all branches of government."

I wonder who is "actually" shutting down the government then? Starts with a "D"

[Bunny495]

As I have posted before until Democrat prez Carter's Democrat AG opined federal government spending was not stopped by a shutdown as there was an expectation the shutdown would end.

One thing different about this one is it is mostly the dem voters whose ox is being gored. Does it really matter to Trump that peeps who did not vote for him are pissed off at him, I think not. To a lot of folks, the shutdown is a nothing burger. For a lot of Trump voters all the shutdown does is confirm their belief that most of what the government does is useless.

[Martinned]

The US murders in the Caribbean continue: https://twitter.com/SecWar/status/1986631797547921741

[wvattorney13]

I predict yet another night of peaceful sleep for me, this news notwithstanding.

[loki13]

I'm sure you will sleep peacefully.

Others of us are disturbed that Americans are being ordered to kill people, and that those orders have no lawful basis in domestic or international law.

We are further disturbed that the government has lied repeatedly about these murders- they have lied about what the boats are carrying (they said fentanyl, except it wasn't, ever). They lied about knowing who was on board the boats (they said they knew the identities, except they didn't, and when other countries identified that in some cases it was not and we murdered completely innocent people who had signalled for help ... we did not argue otherwise but sanctioned those countries and threatened tariffs).

And we have seen multiple people within the Department of Defense (and I will keep calling it that until Congress renames it) resign because of the lack of legal basis for these murders.

But sure, I'm glad you don't care!

[wvattorney13]

Do me a favor, go on Tik-Tok and post a video. Share it. Have all of your friends do the same. It would be great if you could get your Dem leaders to make a video.

Post it far and wide and tell everyone to vote for them so that we can let these people live. Fight the good fight!

[loki13]

I don't do social media.

Also, is Tik-Tok still a thing? We had a law against that, right?

Oh, wait, Trump unilaterally chose that the law didn't exist, and then got a sweetheart deal for his buddies (Ellisons and Thiel) that didn't comply with the law so that they could make some money and China could still get theirs.

Thanks for the reminder!

[JohnSmith97]

Now you care about a president ignoring a law?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Jeez, why did you have to remind him about Tik-Tok.

Now he's not going to get any sleep!

[Commenter_XY]

You are not alone in your concern, loki13.

Presumably, the SecDef has briefed Congress, or the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the relevant Congressional committees. They have the same information. Are they waving their arms and running to the cameras to breathlessly answer questions? No, they are not. If any body (pun intended) should act, it is the Congress. Congress must act, and it would be better to do this before there are American military deaths (to go along with tens of thousands of fentanyl and illicit drug ODs annually).

Congress is conspicuously quiescent. Why? That is what concerns me.

[Sarcastr0]

Vice signaling.

[loki13]

Yeah, I never got why some people thought that "virtue signalling" was the insult that they thought.

Adam: I don't like Nazis.

Baker: DERP! You're just virtue signalling!

Adam: Um, okay. I mean, sure. I agree. Not liking Nazis is a virtue.

Baker: HURDY DURDY! You're just a stupid virtue signaller!!!!

Adam: Um, okay.

(five days later)

Baker: Ima Nazi!

Adam: WTF, man. That's not cool.

Baker: Are you trying to censor me? Are you triggered? Who is the real racist now, Adam????? How dare you like some things, but not like Nazis? You know that you not liking Nazis is even worse than my being a Nazi, right?

[Martinned]

Isn't cancel culture just the worst?

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, I never got why some people thought that "virtue signalling" was the insult that they thought.

Like many things, it originally meant something useful but then got expanded and overused. As criticism of, say, land acknowledgement type speech — something that literally serves no purpose but to say, "Hey, look at me; I'm an enlightened person" — it's legitimate. Trouble is, MAGA expanded the phrase to refer to people actually doing good things.

[Brett Bellmore]

Virtue signaling is an insult, because virtue signaling is an alternative to actually BEING virtuous.

[John 4]

Right wingers are always asking people, “Are you doing virtuous things?” first, and don’t just rotely accuse people of virtue signaling, because they don’t like the statements those people make. Definitely.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'd say the odds are pretty good Loki has an "In this house, we believe..." sign out front.

[bernard11]

And if he does?

All it is is an expression of belief, no different than putting a "Jesus loves you" bumper sticker on your car, or displaying any of a vast number of beliefs in your window or on your t-shirt.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Vice signaling"

Fascism is notoriously hard to define because many of its core elements blur into other forms of despotism. One of those is the practice of exalting cruelty and celebrating the abandonment of all ethical considerations or restraints.

You see that same celebration repeatedly in today's Right. Trump is more symptom than cause, but he's pushed the Joy of Cruelty much further than we've ever seen before. Still, its a general problem-disgrace. It was Elon Musk who said, "The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy".

[grb]

One of the most brutally apt cartoons you'll ever see:

https://x.com/mluckovichajc/status/1986515129576370243?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit.

[Martinned]

Did it hit a nerve?

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

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chicago-immigration-crackdown-agents-raid-daycare-senior-living-center-2025-11-05/

[Mr. Bumble]

"Did it hit a nerve?"
Hardly.
...and your links are also bullshit. Nobody was targeting children.

[grb]

I can hardly see how it could avoid hitting a nerve. After all, it's pretty close to being official SCOUS policy via the shadow docket commentary of one Brett Kavanaugh. As I recall, skin tone and any random miscellanea was more than adequate enuff per the esteemed Justice. Maybe the little girl was also unruly in daycare....

[loki13]

I think that the MAGA people are trying really hard to juggle their dislike of the brown people and their love of public displays of cruelty ...

With their past knowledge that they weren't fans of jack-booted thugs kidnapping people off the street and herding them into camps.

It's kind of a cognitive dissonance.

It's ... you know, it's why they masturbate to those videos of ICE choking a father until he enters a seizure, causing him to hold his infant in a lock ... and then feel guilty after they release.

And then fall asleep.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course you think that. Assuming the worst of your foes is one of the left's biggest vices. Nobody is ever allowed to just disagree with you about anything, they need to be comprehensively evil.

[Sarcastr0]

So, do you just not read the news or what?

[JohnSmith97]

He isn't going to date you, no matter how much you stalk him around this comment section.

[John 4]

Right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex. It’s fascinating.

[Bwaaah]

Is that what "stalking" is to you? Gay sex?

[John 4]

You read good

[TwelveInchPianist]

Although the detail in which Loki assumes the worst of his foes is a little disturbing...

[grb]

For all you lawyers out there (and you know who you are):

I consumed gobs of Perry Mason books as a child, but haven't read much legal fiction since. One Grisham, but little else beside. However, I'll read almost anything from Michael Connelly and have done every Lincoln Lawyer book. His current one is the audiobook playing as I slog thru a hollow metal door & frames submittal.

So what's the overall verdict? I once eagerly bought a mystery built around a group of architects, but abandoned it after a few pages. Every speech was the stalest cliche and all the characters were transparently recognizable real life figures. Quality of writing aside, I suspect that's a problem when you really know a book's subject matter in depth.

[ducksalad]

I suspect that's a problem when you really know a book's subject matter in depth.

It's when you know but the author doesn't. Was the architecture mystery by an architect?

[grb]

I had to look it up, but yes : He is an architect & professor thereof. Turns out, he's written two more architecturally-theme mysteries. I guess I should give the guy another shot.

[loki13]

So in completely non-political news. I hope? It seems like everything gets political anymore. Anyway...

Fox Sports has fired Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez. Which ... I mean, that's pretty pretty pretty unsurprising. Look, I think Sanchez was fine as an NFL analyst. No issues. But ... that's the kind of weird scandal that gets people fired (drunken fight that ends up with a stabbin' and a lyin' ... okay, the lyin' part seems to be part of Trump culture, but still).

But they are replacing him with ... Drew Brees? NO!!!!!!! Drew Brees was one of the all-time great QBs. He is rightfully beloved in New Orleans. He seems like a decent person.

But we've already seen him on broadcasts. He suffers from a terminal lack of charisma. And that's okay! Not everyone has to be interesting. However, it is kind of important for a broadcasting job.

So my simple plea- let Drew Brees go and be happy and make money; just not on NFL broadcasts.

[Sarcastr0]

Who'd be good, in your book?

[Kazinski]

Jon Gruden.

But he would probably better employed replacing Pete Carroll in Vegas.

[loki13]

Good question. It's only the no. 4 team.

The usual rule of thumb is the most important person is the play-by-play (aka, the non-jock). The analyst ("color guy") is usually a famous retired athlete.

More often than not, the most common and often the best are QBs. Aikman (gotten much better). Brady (second year is much better than the first). Romo (big splash early, but I think he's gone a little downhill).

But not always. Madden is probably the most beloved, and he was a former coach. Collinsworth was a WR. JJ Watt - DL.

One of my favorites, who was going to be the #1 on Fox until the hired Brady, is Greg "3LG*" Olson, who was a TE. He's great.

*Third Leg Greg. If you know, you know.

There really has to be two things you are good at-
1. Football smarts. This is why QBs are usually high on the list- the ability to see the field and understand and diagnose what is going on.

2. Charisma/Communication.

Madden (for his time) was the best at both. Brees is great at 1, but has no 2 (Brady, on the other hand, has 1 and is improving at 2). Some players can give you an amazing perspective at other aspects- Watt, for example, is particularly insightful on line play.

The issue is that you while (1) is something you know, (2) is hard- especially when you have to do it for hours on end with an audience.

...so I dunno. .... I mean, I heard that Antonio Brown might be coming back to the United States, but I don't know if he is available.**

**That is a joke.

[grb]

I could never stomach Romo from the start, but haven't bothered to find consistent and exacting standards on this issue. For instance, the basketball commentary of Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy was downright goofy, but I was all in. It helped keep things going until the game got serious in the fourth quarter. I remember once disliking Chris Collinsworth for being overly negative - which seems an untrustworthy memory because he's almost saccharine in geniality today. Of course I go all the way back to Howard Cosell and Don Meredith, so have seen it all.

[Commenter_XY]

Alcohol gets many of them, Loki13.

[Armchair]

The "well, they should negotiate" fallacy.

The Democrats are filibustering, keeping a clean CR from re-opening the government. The fallacy is that the GOP "should" negotiate. But the position from the Democrats is pretty unprecedented, and ultimately bad for our politics. A few facts.

1. Typically politicians negotiate about the overall budget. Sometimes, they run out of time...and in times like these, typically short term continuing resolution (or CR) keeps the status quo, to allow for time for negotiations on the actual budget. The CR is design to be neutral.

2. This allows both sides to set their priorities, then negotiate to a middle ground.

3. This time, like done several times during the Biden administration (and previous administrations), a short term CR was proposed. Neutral.

4. But Democrats filibustered, demanding a trillion dollars worth of additional spending for a 7 week spending bill.

5. This blow the "let's hold the status quo while negotiating out the budget" concept out of the water. Because the GOP was starting from a neutral point, while Democrats went extreme with their demands. Any "negotiation" favors the Democrats, because the GOP didn't ask for anything in the CR at all. Just normal operations.

6. If you're going to actually "negotiate" over the CR, the GOP should've demanded their priorities on spending be made. Then they could "negotiate" with the Democrats to come to the middle. But...again, that's not the point in the CR. The GOP didn't ask for anything.

7. A sticking point here is the filibuster. Remember, Democrats only have a minority in the Senate. Abusing the filibuster like this, to shut down the government is unethical. But, the GOP...once again...is acting like the adult in the room. Knowing that the filibuster is a historical tradition that is being kept.

So, in summary...don't abuse a CR, the filibuster, and a generous neutral position meant to allow time for negotiation with extreme demands then say "it's the other guys fault, because they won't negotiate". It's wrong, and inaccurate.

[grb]

Armchair : " ...position from the Democrats is pretty unprecedented ..."

Right off the bat, we can see you're not serious. Unprecedented?!? Are you aware of how counterfactual that is? As an example, please take 2013. Then conservative Republicans in the House & Senate blocked legislation to extend government spending unless it also repealed the Affordable Care Act.

Saying you won't reopen the government unless the president voluntarily agrees to repeal his major administration accomplishment makes this funding fight look like child's play.

I sometimes think the reason right-wingers are so very easy to lie to is they've lobotomized themselves of all history, recent and past.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, Trump's already abandoned your position. You're making these sweaty posts for nothing.

And the Senate Dems put a deal on the floor not long ago. Rejected by the GOP.

You're out of touch, and your tendentious take is only losing adherents as time goes on. Thanks to Trump, in large part.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The vote on the Democratic proposal was 49 in favor, 46 opposed. There wouldn’t be a shutdown if the Republicans had allowed the Democratic proposal to pass rather than filibustering it.

[Sarcastr0]

And now they just went to SCOTUS to insist they be allowed to stop SMAP payments.

SNAP benefits not going out is now what they intend, and what they want.

[Commenter_XY]

And guess what? SCOTUS agreed. How about that?

You're some lawyer. Your legal skill matches your English and math skills.

[Sarcastr0]

They didn't agree. You don't know what you're talking about.

And you're cheering for denying food assistance to fellow Americans.

[not guilty]

"And guess what? SCOTUS agreed. How about that?"

No, XY, one justice granted an administrative stay -- having nothing whatsoever to do with the merits -- until 48 hours after the First Circuit rules on the Defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110725zr_pnk0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I told you that hours ago and linked to the relevant document. That tells me that you are lying when you say "And guess what? SCOTUS agreed." Why did you do that?

[Sarcastr0]

And were the full Court to shortly actually 'agree' the issue they are agreeing on is that the Admin can *choose* to not fund SNAP.

It's not that they're mandated to.
The Trump administration is still choosing to fund some things (ICE) and not fund others (SNAP). They're deporting people but dnying food to needy citizens.

[David Nieporent]

Look, I think my anti-Trump bona fides are pretty well established, but there is no provision of law that allows Trump to decide to reallocate money from ICE to SNAP. SNAP's appropriations have lapsed. If you want to blame the admin for SNAP not being funded, the argument has to be about the overall refusal to compromise to end the shutdown; it's not that Trump can just decide to spend money on SNAP.

[JohnSmith97]

The new standard of "deal" is when a couple of (R) join all the (D) in something?

Does this standard apply when it is a couple of (D) joining all the (R) in something?

[Sarcastr0]

A deal is a what, not a who.

Your factionalism seems to have degraded your language center.

[wvattorney13]

I went to buy a new car and offered the dealer $100. He took 15% off the price. I told him $100. He walked away.

My question: Why did he walk away? Shouldn't he have negotiated with me?

[bernard11]

Have the Republicans offered to "take 15% off the price?"

Still, the car-buying analogy is useful. I'd say the Republicans are trying to buy a car, but refuse to negotiate the price, so they say,

"Look, just give me the car for what I'm offering, and I'll come back in a couple of months and we can negotiate a price."

[grb]

.

[loki13]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trial-dispatch--the-comey-hearing-of-nov.-5--2025

I recommend reading it all. I appreciate the summary of what happened at the hearing, as I was only aware of the headline takeaway (release of the grand jury proceedings to Comey), and not all the issues that led to it. I mean ... dang.

Read to the end. I saw the VERY QUICK and NO NONSENSE order from Judge Nachmanoff this morning- look, things happen in litigation. But the DOJ is repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot through incompetence, lying, and eliding facts.

And if you had an issue with the MJ, best to say it to him. The issue (as noted) isn't just ... all the stupid stuff you're doing, it's also the timeframes. And to not say something in court, and then try and appeal the next day means that the judge is going to immediately benchslap you (sorry, remand on the limited issue of a finding with particularized facts, which are easy because of the hearing) for doing so.

But this is what a clown car looks like. You can almost see the judges in the E.D. Va. mentally processing what is happening ... "Wait, this is the DOJ?"

[Kenneth Almquist]

I hadn’t realized that the appeal was raising issues that hadn’t been raised before the magistrate judge. Lawyers aren’t supposed to make new arguments for the first time in an appeal. I’m guessing that the trial judge could have ruled that the government waived the arguments made in the appeal by failing to make them before the magistrate judge.

[John F. Carr]

This week in forum shopping:

In re: MCP 191, 1st Cir. 24-8028

The Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022 directs the FCC to reduce rates for phone calls made by prisoners. Providers of prison phone services, led by Securus, are upset because there is great profit to be made from a captive audience. Prisoner advocates are pleased. This is a zero sum game. Each dollar Securus and friends make is a dollar out of prisoners' and families' accounts.

In August, 2024 the FCC published part of an order related to prison call rates. The published part simply denied a petition for clarification. The rest of the order setting the rates had not yet been published. Securus filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit. Prisoner advocates filed a petition for review in the First Circuit, saying in effect "we don't know what the rest of the order will say but we are not going to like it."

When mutiple petitions for review are filed, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation chooses one circuit at random to hear all challenges. The First Circuit won the lottery.

Then the rest of the order dropped. Subsequently filed petitions for review were transferred to the First Circuit as required by law. One petition was filed directly there.

Securus argued, the initial petitions by prisoner advocates don't count because they were not filed within 10 days of the order to be challenged. You can't say "I object to an order that has not yet been published" There was only one legitimate petition, ours. The lottery should not have been held. Send the case back to the Friendly Fifth.

Decision: Securus can not collaterally challenge the decision to consolidate cases in the First Circuit. The First Circuit has no authority to review decisions of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Regardless of whether the first petition was timely filed, at least one later petition was properly filed in the First Circuit. And no party has requested discretionary transfer.

So the challenge to prison phone rate rules will remain in a liberal circuit.

Meanwhile, the FCC proposes to revise the rates again. The case in the First Circuit may be moot.

[Bwaaah]

I (combined with my wife) just got a check for $400 from New York State. For what?

"Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature are providing you with this Inflation Refund as part of broader, ongoing efforts to help address the rising cost of living."

The payments go to all people who filed NY tax returns last year, with payments scaled to three income categories: $200 for Most Deserving (under $75K income), $150 for Medium Deserving ($75-150K), and nothing for Undeserving (over $150K).

Democratic Socialism is great! People say that for every $1 they refund to us, it puts $3 back into the economy. (Or was it $2? Or $5?) Why don't they "refund" all of the inflation costs instead of just a fraction? That would pay back even more! Sensible is sensible. And fair is fair.

These Democrats sure do understand how to tackle inflation! This is a good reason [for deserving people] to pay taxes!

(If DJT gets a whiff of this, he might send out even bigger, fairer refunds. We could have vote buying wars! FUCK US ALL!)

[grb]

Has anyone ever whined so hardily about getting a check in the mail? Truly the right-wing capacity for victimhood is endless!

[Bwaaah]

GoooooOOOOO TEAM!!!!!!!! (You must be an economist!)

[Commenter_XY]

No, a troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, a douche.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will there be an open thread tomorrow?
Check back at 3:00 AM EST.

[not guilty]

Apparently not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Keep holy the Sabbath?

[Bwaaah]

Fixed the bug in the auto-posting logic?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knows, but even God took a day off.

[grb]

So there was a televised event yesterday from the Oval Office where Mehmet Oz gave a little speech on obesity and dementia. On cue, Donald Trump passed-out in his chair, obvious to everything with a coma-like intensity. As Oz yakked on, you'd think one the leeches, loons, or lackies gathered around Trump would have prodded the chair or surreptitiously poked a shoulder, but they were brought into the administration for their dog-like obedience and abject cowardice, so didn't dare.

It took the bizarre incident of somebody collapsing in the corner to finally wake Dozy Don, and then he stood and briefly looked down at the man receiving medical attention before turning away and staring vacantly into space with a face devoid of consciousness or thought. Of course that's his typically look when not hustling, scamming, or lying to marks. I'm convinced the little that's left of his brain doesn't function at all when not engaged in his natural state of hucksterism & lies.

Of course if Joe Biden had humiliated himself, his office, and the country like that........

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gavin-newsom-declares-dozy-don-045455873.html

[Bwaaah]

You might want to click the refresh button on your news screen there. Yesterday is gone.

[Estragon]

Yeah, Don is suffering from dementia related to Alzheimer’s— just like his father. 2 physicals in a year? And a “perfect” MRI for no reason? And the MOCA cognitive exams he keeps describing as IQ tests? They are monitoring the progression of dementia. They pretty much admitted he was checked out when they said his full focus will be on the ballroom. Note the appearance of the memory-care sign outside the Oval Office. The guy is fried. Factoring in the congestive heart failure, 6 months to live is my guess.

[grb]

After the recent trip to Japan (where he babbled nonsense about water negating magnetism - one of those strange obsessions that bounce endlessly back&forth around his cavernous skull), Trump radically changed U.S. policy of decades with his announcement (by tweet) that we'd resume nuclear weapon testing.

This was because the addled old fool misunderstood what his aides told him about Russian weapon development and became convinced they were already exploding test bombs. The next day officials whose brains are still functional tried to cleanup the mess, publicly announcing the United States had no plans to set-off new hydrogen or atomic bombs. No doubt they attempted to talk to Trump when he was at his most alert and rational, trying to rectify the old coot's confusion. So problem averted with minimum damage, right?

Sorry, no. Because later that day Trump went on 60 Minutes and insisted the Russians and Chinese were already testing while the U.S. stood by. Because by this point you can't be sure his cognitively impaired brain can absorb anything it hears. So we have a mentally-impaired basket-case changing nuclear policy on the basis of brain damage alone. Presumably, someone managed to slowly explain things to him as you would a child. But we can't be sure. The world can't be sure.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not diagnosing anything but that is a *helluva* pic, with everyone over dealing with the guy who had collapsed, and Trump by himself, light on him, looking vaguely annoyed.

[DDHarriman]

"But those gathered outside the museum on the opening night of the conference had a different impression: that pro-natalism was part of a broader and more insidious project to create a whiter America. "

https://archive.ph/09asL

Western Civ is below replacement rates but the Modern Left is pissed that some are fighting back against The Great Replacement.

White people will become extinct soon. I guess those Planet of the Apes got the plot wrong. It was warfare it was Tikkun Olan.

[Michael Ejercito]

Falling birth rates are a global phenomenom.

[Sarcastr0]

“ Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.
…
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

—Harry Truman, 1952

Same shit, different day.

[DDHarriman]

Haha yeah that's so true!! Socialism is stuff that helps ALL the people! History proves this!!!

I wish I could be a golden hearted socialist who just loved everyone else so much I wanted to force them into my socialism like you are!

[Brett Bellmore]

You always look at the benefits, and never the costs. Over and over again. You're helping people, AND harming them, but because you never count the harm, it always looks good to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you've shown you don't care about costs. You bring them up so you can insist we do things your way. That's all you want. No other way to solve the problem will do. Which means you don't care about the problem.

Again, you don't care about costs.

I've brought up reforming the actual driver of costs, our nondiscretionary budget. You don't care. You're just here to yell costs and then insist we do things your way.

You are a utopian, and any claims you make of a crisis are you lying to gin up support. You're also lying to yourself, but that doesn't change that your cost issues are false.

Again, you don't care about costs.

[Bwaaah]

I think what you're trying to say about Brett, with respect to concern for costs, is that he is as unconcerned as you are. Which is obviously untrue.

You skip past your own position, and paint Brett in the color of your evil clone.

Take a stand, Sarc. Move beyond your reactionary stance to Brett's position. Defend your position regarding costs, and what should be done about them to meet your evidently slight concerns.

All you can do is attack others because you have little-to-no compelling defense of your own positions.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a terrible habit of telling people at length what they think. You're always wrong.

When you're corrected by someone, you insist that your vibes are mostly right.

here is Brett discarding a number of solutions to our debt, even to the point of discarding the notion of compromise. The only thing he will allow to deal with this problem he claims to worry about is his solution.
That's not how someone acts when they care.

I, by contrast, have offered taxes and reindexing benefits, and compromise on spending. Likely a good solution is a mix of these.

So you're 100% wrong. About me, and about Brett. Not that I expect you to change your opinion - you've been challenged before and it doesn't matter.

Back to mute for you; your posts of creepy telepathy about me, and DMN, and others, is not anything worth arguing with.

[Commenter_XY]

Science Man, you still don't know basic math and English.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "I, by contrast, have offered taxes and reindexing benefits, and compromise on spending"

So what cost(s) do you want to cut, in what amount(s)?

[ducksalad]

Seems like pardons are being issued at a faster than normal rate, but it could just be getting more attention.

https://apnews.com/article/china-nypd-michael-mcmahon-trump-pardon-01d4479986dfc799a1809b6d773021be

Convicted of being an unregistered agent of the Chinese government, trying to fugitives from the CCP to return to China and face changes. For the record, he says he was misled into participating.

[48a7eeb]

Four short paragraphs below from the San Diego Tribune clearly contrast misunderstandings about the recent drug war escalation - effectiveness of non-police responses to overdose deaths; their reducing numbers; and that these drugs are brought into the US through Mexico, not across the Caribbean.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/11/07/the-hard-slow-work-of-reducing-overdose-deaths-is-having-an-effect/

“The national conversation is just about warships in the Caribbean and drones and borders,” said Nabarun Dasgupta, who studies overdose trends at the University of North Carolina. “It discounts this huge groundswell of Americans taking care of Americans. There’s a huge amount of caregiving and tending to the needs of local communities that is being done in a non-flashy way because this is hard, slow work.”

Overdose deaths have been dropping steadily since 2023. As of April, the latest date available, deaths were at 76,500 for the previous 12 months — their lowest level since March 2020. A pandemic spike in overdose deaths drove the number as high as almost 113,000 in the summer of 2023, according to federal statistics.

President Donald Trump has ordered more than a dozen military strikes against boats in the open waters of the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean since Sept. 2, claiming without publicized evidence that their occupants were drug runners bringing narcotics to the United States. Nearly 60 people have been killed.

The bulk of deadly fentanyl is smuggled over the border with Mexico in passenger cars, according to a September report by the federal Government Accountability Office. Chemicals and equipment, mostly from China, are smuggled in via cargo trucks, commercial ships, airplanes and the mail, according to the report.

[not guilty]

The cert petition filed on behalf of Kimberly Jean Bailey Wallace Davis McIntyre Davis in regard to the judgment for damages against her in her individual capacity was scheduled to be considered in yesterday's conference at SCOTUS.

One of the questions presented for review is "Whether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned." That should pose a dilemma for Clarence Thomas, who despises substantive due process except for one case -- the man loves him some Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Perhaps counsel for Ms. Davis should have framed the question: "Whether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned except for anyone whose first name is Clarence and whose last name is Thomas."

[wvattorney13]

When cert is denied on this petition first thing Monday are you guys going to drop this ridiculous hijack or go on for years about how the Court "almost" overruled Obergefell here?

[DDHarriman]

You're asking the wrong person that question. There's no way he's the Narrative Master. You need to speak to whoever that is because he controls everything the Left believes.

[Sarcastr0]

"Asked why people were not coming to the Kennedy Center as much anymore, Ms. Daravi, the head of communications, replied with two words. 'Liberal intolerance.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/the-kennedy-center-crackup.html

Lose the culture war; declare war on culture itself.

[Sarcastr0]

"Cracking like dogs" is a new one.

[grb]

Jim Watson died. As you would expect, the NYT obit noted the controversy regarding Rosalind Franklin's contribution to the discovery of DNA's structure, but I don't think their details were completely right :

1. Most of the discussion centers around Photo 51, an x-ray diffraction image of B-form DNA shown to Watson by Maurice Wilkins. Was that a breach of scientific ethics? No. By then, Franklin was leaving King's College lab, and Wilkins had inherited her research.

2. Was Photo 51 critical to Crick and Watson? Here I'm on shakier ground, but no. Its primary importance was showing the pair DNA had two chains. But that was already their operating assumption anyway. However, I'm well aware having an assumption confirmed as true makes a big difference.

3. Franklin's research did play a critical role, but that was through the MRC Report submitted before her departure. It was shown to Crick and he spotted her conclusion that the molecule's two chains run in opposite directions. Was showing them the report unethical? People differ, but there's another factor: All the data in the report had been presented by her at a public open forum, including that crucial fact. Watson was actually there, but didn't take notes. According to his later gleeful account, he was too busy ogling Franklin.

4. Did Crick and Watson credit Franklin? Yes - in their initial paper. I presume you can question whether they gave her proper due when the paper led to fame, but I'm not sure. Crick was always generous and later became Franklin's friend before she died. Watson was a immature jerk towards her in his New Yorker account and subsequent book, but accurately described her role in both.

5. Was Franklin a victim of sexism? Of course. Her conflict with Maurice Wilkins is probably the most famous feud in the history of science. Wilkins deserves most of the blame given her very presence was the problem with him, but both were irascible, quick to take insult and slow to let it go. But only Franklin suffered consequences for the spat. She was the one judged unreasonable. She was the one ridiculed and scorned. She was the one who had to abandon her research and leave the lab.