Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Congratulations.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

People that believe Dred Scott was wrongly decided are morons! Watch 12 Years a Slave and get back to me about the rights of the very small number of free blacks in a country of 4 million slaves! America was a white supremacist nation at inception…slavery was a euphemism for what he had in America.

[not guilty]

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), is "originalism" run wild:

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

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

60 U.S. at 403 (1856).

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

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

Id., at 604-605.

Scratch an "originalist"; find a stone cold racist.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

America was a country with 4 million slaves…that seems pretty racist to me! Btw, most of the major Jacksonians left the Democratic Party in the 1850s and some even helped found the Republican Party! Taney didn’t join the secessionists and his state, Maryland, remained in the Union. Most of the legal scholars that are critical of Taney and Dred Scott are just deflecting from the fact America was very flawed and the Constitution and not Taney was the problem. Dred Scott was not only correctly decided but it was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

[not guilty]

"Dred Scott was not only correctly decided but it was inconsequential in the grand scheme of things."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

4 million slaves before…and 4 million after.

[not guilty]

And a civil war with hundreds of thousands of casualties, followed by adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

[Martinned]

Sure, but in the grand scheme of things...

[Frank Drackman]

and ironically at the end, the only remaining Slave States were the ones that fought for the North.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

There were slaves in Delaware 6 mos after "Juneteenth"

[David Nieporent]

A relatively small number, as slaves were never a big part of Delaware's population. But yes, that's correct; the Emancipation Proclamation by its own terms only applied to states in rebellion, which Delaware was not.

[Krayt]

Regarding which, amendments, by the way:

that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves[...]when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen"[...tough shit for you]

Hence why they needed a slightly odd sounding phrase like "or previous condition of servitude", for inevitable weasel efforts to preserve a legal disability even after emancipation.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Civil War was a different event. Taney was attempting to prevent war with Dred Scott so war was inevitable before and after Dred Scott.

[Kazinski]

That's why I have him muted.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm not an "originalist," but it looks like you're the one being soft on racism, because you're refusing to consider the possibility that a racist like Taney might be lying (to himself or others).

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Racism was the rule and not the exception. Taney was definitely a racist but so was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was waging war against Native Americans at the same time he was waging war against the CSA…and Lincoln didn’t return California to Mexico even though as a congressman he opposed the Mexican War.

[Kazinski]

Of course it isn't originalsm, and I pointed that out a couple of weeks ago.

The passage you quote above:
"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing."

Contradicts the naturalization clause of the Constitution, which leaves it up to Congress to determine the qualifications of citizenship.

And the constitution use of "persons' contradicts the assertion that only citizens constitute 'the people'.

"The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not...", without source or.reason is hardly the sort of argument an originalist makes.

And the claim they have divined its "true intent" is just the sort of argument a living constitutionalist would make.

[not guilty]

The decision illustrates how purported "originalism" is a scam -- a pretext to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

[ReaderY]

Not only is Dred Scott judge-made substantive due process run wild, but it is the prototype of the approach to substantive due process that Roe v Wade used. Roe closely followed Scott in reviewing the history of fetuses in this country and concluding, correctly, that they did not generally have full rights historically and rights they did have were of comparatively recent origin. Roe has passages remarkably similar to the ones quoted from Scott. But both then leapt to the same fallacious conclusion. Roe inferred a judge-made anti-originalist fundamental right to have an abortion in much the same way that Scott inferred an equally judge-made, equally anti-originalist fundamental right to own a slave.

Both inferences were profoundly anti-originalist. In both cases, the idea that slavety and abortion are moral wrongs (respectively) was historically a completely separate concept from the idea that Africans and fetuses are full members of society with full rights. A minority of states had abolished slavery, and a larger number had passed laws giving slaves some measure of protection from cruelty, even at the founding. The pre-Constitution Congress had abolished slavery in the very Northwest Territory from which Illinois became a state. Negating blacks/fetuses are full citizens in no way negates the idea that they have some measure of humanity to which governments can give some measure of protection, and such measures had been in place prior to the Constitution.

Both decisions set up a false dichotomy - either full citizens or sacks of meat - that was completely without originalist basis. They both reached their conclusions by knocking down a completely straw, irrelevant argument.

Scott was right that African slaves were not citizens at the founding. But so what? The right of the states in their territories, and Congress in its territory, to not only give them various rights including abolishing slavery but to go further and grant them citizenship, voting rights, etc. by statute if they wanted to, was well established even at the founding. The claim that because relatively few had such rights historically, that meant that such grants somehow violated a white man’s fundamental rights was substantive due process run amuck. The judges found that supposed fundamental right not in the text but by rolling up the constitution and smoking it. It was utterly anti-originalist. Just like Roe.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That pesky Constitution and our traditions got in Taney’s way! The Constitution along with our traditions make clear that we are a white supremacist nation and in fact no free blacks served in Congress or attended Harvard or served as an officer in the Army…Jews did all of those things before 1865. Those were the first 3 things I looked up as evidence of an individual being a full citizen of America and all 3 ended up going the way of my hypothesis. I just looked up the first black attorney and it happened in 1844 in Maine when the abolitionist movement was well underway. Even in Maine he couldn’t be successful as an attorney because of racism and after the Civil War he moved to Charleston, SC. So he obviously couldn’t have moved to Charleston before the Civil War…but you argue he was in fact a “citizen”. Ok, I hereby declare that you can’t go to Charleston…but you should be happy because you are a “citizen”! 😉

[Riva]

Interesting example. The Dred Scott decision. Brings to mind some comments of the great Judge Bork:

Dred Scott “was at least possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for Lochner v. New York and Roe v. Wade.” Lochner employed substantive due process to strike down a state law limiting the hours of work by bakery employees. Roe used substantive due process to create a constitutional right to abortion. Lochner and Roe, therefore, have a very ugly common ancestor. But once it is conceded that a judge may give the due process clause substantive content, Dred Scott, Lochner, and Roe are equally valid examples of constitutional law.

And of course we see the continued abuse of the doctrine by the Court to impose their preferred policies in Planned Parenthood v Casey and Obergefell. Go imperial judiciary!

We could say, scratch a comment by a leftist and find projection, or scratch a leftist and find an authoritarian.

[wvattorney13]

Even if what Taney said was true, why does it follow that no future law could ever be passed, either by Congress or state legislatures, to bring blacks into the fold of citizenship?

For example, Congress can pass uniform laws of naturalization. Are you suggesting that Congress could make citizens of everyone in the whole world EXCEPT free blacks living in the United States? Blacks in Africa, but not here?

[Krayt]

I don't think anyone thought Congress couldn't if they wanted to. Just that there was an actively demonic evil faction that made necessary the phrase "...or previous condition of servitude" when Congress did eventually get around to it.

[Bored Lawyer]

The opinion, as quoted, deals with blacks who were forcibly imported into the US as slaves or their descendants. So in theory if Africans immigrated here voluntarily, they could be citizens. The notion probably did not occur to Taney.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Once you begin admitting free blacks then slavery starts breaking down because a slave can escape to the north and blend in to a black neighborhood…so in order to perpetuate slavery you can’t admit free blacks. That’s why indentured servitude broke down because the population started exploding and travel started getting much easier.

[David Nieporent]

Roughly 12% of the black population of the U.S. were free blacks at the time.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And yet Harvard didn’t admit known blacks until 1865…what a coincidence!! So the free blacks weren’t really free because they were obviously second class citizens. Nice try though. 😉

[David Nieporent]

Your claim is false, and also an utter non sequitur.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Oh no, maybe the 1619 Project wasn’t all wrong??? Maybe had it been called the 1836 Project it would have been 100% correct instead of just mostly correct?!? 😉

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So in theory if Africans immigrated here voluntarily, they could be citizens. The notion probably did not occur to Taney."

The opinion mentions that at the time the Constitution was adopted,
"[n]o one of that race had ever migrated to the United States voluntarily; all of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise."

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you want to talk about "slavery", how about the mandatory "volunteer" work people are now being required to do to keep medicare?

I have no problem asking them to work -- I have a problem with not paying them as that's SLAVERY!

[not guilty]

My comment yesterday did not generate the feedback that I had anticipated, so I will repost it here:

The New York Times is reporting:

Far-right influencers have been hinting in recent weeks that they have finally found a venue — Miami — and a federal prosecutor — Jason A. Reding Quiñones — to pursue long-promised charges of a “grand conspiracy” against President Trump’s adversaries.

Their theory of the case, still unsupported by the evidence: A cabal of Democrats and “deep-state” operatives, possibly led by former President Barack Obama, has worked to destroy Mr. Trump in a yearslong plot spanning the inquiry into his 2016 campaign to the charges he faced after leaving office.

But that narrative, which has been promoted in general terms by Mr. Trump and taken root online, has emerged in a nascent but widening federal investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-probe-subpoenas.html The story reports that subpoenas calling for production of documents in Miami by November 20 have issued.

I am puzzled as to what federal crimes are being investigated, as well as what act(s) if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida..

If and to the extent that prosecutors are relying on some kind of criminal conspiracy theory, several questions come to mind:

Who are the supposed conspirators?

When was the conspiratorial agreement formed, and by whom?

What was the object of the conspiracy?

When was the conspiratorial objective achieved or, in the alternative, abandoned?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 371, what overt acts were committed in furtherance thereof?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 241, whose federal rights were supposedly violated or intended to be violated? What specific federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated or intended to be violated? What then existing authorit(ies) gave fair warning that such rights were "clearly established" for purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred in the Southern District of Florida?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred within the past five years?

Get out those track shoes, MAGAts.

It could be, of course, that the lack of response from the MAGA cult commenters here is because they were genuinely dumbfounded. I doubt that, since they are generally a voluble bunch, albeit not a very perspicacious one. So how about it, Trump fans? What is the factual and legal basis of the fanciful "grand conspiracy" that Mr. Reding Quiñones is reportedly investigating?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

A grand conspiracy existed but it was more a “great minds think alike” than a bunch of men in a smoky room coming up with a plan. Bush Republicans attempted to remove Trump and install Pence and they had the same idea with Clinton/Gore to install Gingrich and the GOPe successfully installed Ford as president by removing Nixon and Agnew and stole the presidency from Gore to install Bush as president.

We also know Rod Rosenstein mentioned the 25th Amendment and that Yates testified Comey started acting bizarrely once Trump was inaugurated. And we know Flynn was undermined and McMaster was able to manipulate Trump into continuing the Afghanistan War when Flynn was critical of the Afghanistan War. Oh, and Republicans in Congress voted Lizard Cheney into House leadership in January 2021 and then Haley and Mace were all over cable news trying to get Trump banned from running again! DeSantis was the preferred candidate of the GOPe and he’s obviously a Bush Republican.

[not guilty]

^Poe's Law?^

[Kazinski]

Its OK, I never could figure out what crime Trump was being charged for in Manhattan either. But now a year later two appeals courts are looking at it so I suppose that case, and this one too will all work out in the end.

[not guilty]

Whataboutism is one pernicious addiction.

[Kazinski]

Its absolutely not whatabloutism.

I'm expressing faith in our self-correcting justice system.

[Martinned]

I never could figure out what crime Trump was being charged for in Manhattan either

Yes, we noticed. That didn't stop you from loudly proclaiming his innocence, though.

[Krayt]

There doesn't have to be actual innocence for a cabal to have done wrong. The 4th Amendment search and seizure and warrant rules are about forbidding fishing expeditions to find actual crimes.

Tyrant kings did this all the time for irritating opponents, to give a sheen of respectibility, kicking their nuts while being able to facete concern for rule of law.

Tyrant kings, themselves kleptocrats, knew most other rich and powerful people, who hence had fingers in many pies, almost certainly could be shown to have infractions if you plowed through everything.

This siccing the government's investigative and prosecutorial power on a political opponent because they were an opponent, while feigning, golly, concern for rule of law, was so pervasive and problematic, it justified its own amendment.

So did expropriating the estate of an uppity lord. Which the folks faceting concern for rule of law also did.

"But he's such a bad guy, that's why there's so many cases!" Nice meming, and excellent faceting of concern for rule of law.

Rather, the sheer number of cases, half of which are overturned (which is irrelevant in this context, keep in mind) is direct evidence of going after an opponent qua opponent, as is faceting up the severity of a case from misdemenor to felony, so you can use it as an argument further downstream to disable your political opponent.

You literally, loudly, and out in the open, sent the federal investigations "down to the states" in case "he pardoned himself". This was trumpeted loudly. This is concern to get a political opponent, not concern for rule of law, as tawdry as a self-pardon would be.

I have no idea what would be entailed in proving such a conspiracy, but crossing a the I's and dotting all the Ts is just what the faceting doctor ordered.

Please, do be upset over this. You are right to be upset over this. You also richly deserve it.

You also won't learn from it. You also won't learn from an in-your-face demonstration of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in trying to reign in the actions of a true charismatic demagogue in arrogating power. Once he retires or octogenarians in the natural course of things, you'll be right back at pushing arrogation of power to the power monger class with clever attempts to work around the Constitution and the pesky amendment process.

Your motivated evil tries things like shucking off the Constitution because dead old white men and original sin (a clever importation from religion), and trying to bust the First Amendment over harrassment by declaring it worthless speech, and therefore bannable.

These horrible motivations are all your buds, buddy

[ducksalad]

Krayt, are you suggesting that Americans deserve to be subjected power mongering authoritarians because some guy in the Netherlands is a hypocrite?

[Krayt]

I'm trying to correct much longer term bad behaviors, that have been plaguing us so long they are featured as bad behaviors in the Constitution. Trump, no matter what, has numbered days from the Constitution and age itself. His charismatic demagoguery is arrogating power quickly. Those who like to leverage these "constitutional workarounds" should be taken aback by seeing it used by the opposition, instead of doubling down on it.

It's a refreshing warning, a refreshment of history, if nothing else, and therefore useful.

And I further prognisticate they will continue to bitch about it, right on schedule, and after he's gone, re-adopt it for their own power arrogation, right on schedule.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Your claim that the 4th Amendment was intended to protect guilty people rather than innocent people is contradicted by the text of the amendment itself:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It talks about a right of the people, not a right of guilty people. The problem with fishing expeditions is not that they might uncover evidence of a crime. The Amendment specifically allows the government obtain a warrant to search for evidence of a crime when there is probable cause that the search will find evidence of a crime. The problem with fishing expeditions is that they are too likely to violate the right of innocent people to be secure against unreasonable seizures.

With regard to the rest of your post, it seems that you do not dispute that Trump ordered the prosecution of people because he views those people as his enemies, and that Trump was wrong to do so. Instead, you claim that Democrats went after Trump because he was a political opponent. Your evidence?

1. The “sheer number of cases” is “direct evidence of going after an opponent.”

First of all, there is good reason to believe that Trump is a career criminal. He repeatedly declined to pay his bills, and then tried to settle out of court for a large fraction of what he owed. Individually, these look like civil disputes, but put together, they show a pattern that should have been prosecuted as fraud. Similarly, Trump ended up paying only civil penalties for the Trump University fraud. Mark Pomerantz, in People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account, makes a case for indicting Trump for mortgage fraud. While Pomerantz’s boss, Alvin Bragg, decided not to bring the case, nobody in the Manhattan DA’s office thought that Trump was innocent. So you have to look at the four procecutions in the context of there likely being a large number of crimes by Trump that were not prosecuted.

Secondly, “going after an opponent” didn’t occur unless you water down the phrase to mean something like a prosector from one political party prosecuting a member of the opposing party, which happens on a regular basis. Alvin Bragg is not a political opponent of Trump: Trump hasn’t run for the office of Manhattan DA and Bragg hasn’t run for President. The Federal prosecutions of Trump were handed off to a special counsel.

2. “faceting up the severity of a case from misdemenor to felony, so you can use it as an argument further downstream to disable your political opponent.”

Putting aside the fact that “faceting” doesn’t mean whatever you think it means, the didn’t happen. Sometimes prosecutors overcharge, but that didn’t happen in the Manhattan case: Trump committed falsification of business records in the first degree, and that’s what he was charged with. Trump wasn’t running against Alvin Bragg and the prosecution did not “disable” Trump or indeed hurt him at all politically. Pretty much everyone already knew that Trump was a criminal; that was already built into the election.

3. “You literally, loudly, and out in the open, sent the federal investigations ‘down to the states’”

Again, didn’t happen. The “you” in this sentence refers to Martinned, who’s not even a U.S. citizen, much less someone with any authority over Federal investigations. While state cases can be “removed” to Federal court, there is no procedure for a Federal case to be “sent down” to a state court, so this claim is legal nonsense.

Bottom line: you can’t defend Trump, and your assertion that Democrats did something similar doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[bernard11]

there is good reason to believe that Trump is a career criminal.

Don't forget Trump's embezzling from his foundation.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

You mean when he bid on the picture he donated at the charity auction?

[David Nieporent]

That was only one of many instances. An even more egregious one is when he gave a $25,000 bribe to then-Florida-A.G. Pam Bondi to drop her fraud investigation of Trump "University," and he used the Trump Foundation's money to do it.

[bernard11]

In some ways, paying Barron's $7 Boy Scout fee out of foundation funds is worse.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I see Krayt has not responded to these well articulated points. I predict he will not, and in a few days post some version of the same diatribe he's been posting for years.

[Kazinski]

I am glad you noticed, and I am sure you will congratulate me when I post an 'I told you so', when his conviction is thrown out.

The prosecutor struggled for years to define a crime.

There is a whole book about it.

[John F. Carr]

I didn't comment because there was nothing to say. An investigation is underway and we don't know the facts. If the DOJ were functioning properly we wouldn't know anything until the indictment was unsealed. Under Trump we have some leaks.

[Bunny495]

I didn't comment for the same reason. I would point out that there have been leaks under every administration I can recall. I never discount the idea that in situations like this the process is the punishment.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad there are still some places in Europe where there is free speech.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek speaking at Hungarian CPAC:

https://x.com/EvaVlaar/status/1987942751103754569?s=20

On the other hand, there are some places where you can go to jail for just being rude:

"Former footballer Joey Barton is 'an undiluted, unapologetic bully' and not 'the free speech crusader he paints himself to be,' a jury was told today.

Far from being a 'martyr' sacrificed 'on the altar of political correctness', the ex-Manchester City and Newcastle midfielder 'simply descended into behaviour that was worthy only of the gutter', according to prosecutors.

Barton, 43, is on trial accused of 12 counts of posting 'grossly offensive' tweets about women football commentators Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko and also broadcaster Jeremy Vine."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-15269273/Joey-Barton-branded-undiluted-unapologetic-bully-not-free-speech-crusade.html

[Martinned]

Yes, Hungary, that famous beacon of free speech. Maybe you should stick to talking about US politics. When you do that, you're also wrong, but at least you're wrong based on personal familiarity with the matter.

[Bwaaah]

For those who don't know Kindspeak, this is a translation: "Hungary is one of those shithole countries."

[Kazinski]

I have been to Hungary, and I've read a lot of Hungarian history.

But I'm pretty sure you don't speak Hungarian either, so you are following along in English the same as the rest of us.

And as you know Eva Vlaardingerbroek isn't Hungarian, nor was she talking about Hungarian politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Whether the UK or Germany or Hungary, your paeons to free speech are specifically about the far right.

It's not really about free speech.

[Kazinski]

Demonstrably not true, if you read the Joey Barton case I posed above its nothing political about it.

He is a former footballer, comparing to female sportscasters futbal commentary to two serial killers.

I can't see anything 'political' here in his lawyers argument, and notice the legal standard needed for a conviction that I bolded:

"Mr Csoka said it was obvious that the tweets referencing Fred and Rose West were never intended to suggest that Ward and Aluko were serial killers.

He also said it was obvious that calling Mr Vine 'a bike nonce' was not suggesting the broadcaster was a paedophile.

Mr Csoka said he accepted that Barton had used 'puerile and vulgar expressions in a cack-handed attempt at being sardonic.'

But he said: 'Are you going to draw the line there?

'These idiotic, immature tweets do not go beyond the line.

'Do you not think that there was some misjudgement by Mr Barton here? That he did not think it through?

'But someone is entitled to wind up another person.

'You cannot be sure that the tweets were intended to cause anxiety or distress and crossed the line of what is tolerable in society.'

Unless you are arguing that free speech is a far right wing value that's opposed by the left, and I will just concede the point.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know him, but I do notice that when you Google him you get articles about Joey Barton's far-right rebrand.

Maybe you didn't mean to, but it seems you got caught up in some internal right-left culture war nonsense, across the pond.

It makes sense, given the sources you seem to follow.

[AmosArch]

Breaking News... AP has discovered that the poor innocent drug traffickers targeted by Trump were

*DRUM ROLL*

indeed drug traffickers to the utter shock of no one with a brain. But....they beez good boys. They didn't do nuthin'. They were turning their lives around!

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-95b54a3a5efec74f12f82396a79617ea

[not guilty]

AmosArch, did you, uh, read the AP article before commenting on it? The thrust and premise of the article is that the decedents were not the "narco traffickers" that President Trump falsely labeled as "enemy combatants," with whom the U.S. is now in an “armed conflict”.

We have come three quarters of full circle with our presidents. George Washington could not tell a lie. Bill Clinton could not tell the truth. Donald Trump cannot tell the difference.

[AmosArch]

Did you read the article? They literally were running drugs but it was okay because they had backstories with fuzzy warm memories supposedly.

[Bwaaah]

Sure, they were running drugs. But they weren't "narco-terrorists."

Call them something else. (Out on the ocean, they looked "unhoused" to me, although I'm not good with glazing language.)

[Commenter_XY]

You know what I call them? Shark shit. 😉

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yep, I call the little American girl and her 9 little friends that Trump assassinated in January 2017 “Muzzies in hell”… because they never accepted Jesus. 😉

[Drewski]

Note that XY claims to be an observant Jew. To say this is a serious sin. Indeed, he cannot again be clean until and unless he asks for forgiveness here.

[wvattorney13]

"residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang."

I get it. My wife and I just tussle a little bit and sometimes she slips and falls. I'm not a wife beater or anything.

[Martinned]

The better analogy is "My wife and I just tussle a little bit and sometimes she slips and falls. I'm not a serial killer or anything."

If you can't comprehend that analogy, maybe analogies are not for you.

[Frank Drackman]

Your description of your sex life just made me throw up in my mouth.
OK, everything about you makes me throw up.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

lol got that euro fag... I bet his belt is thinner than his mustache.

[AmosArch]

They're not drug traffickers they just ran drugs a few times! They're not crime bosses they're just crime bosses!

Gee you should take that same logic and defend Trump with it for J6. His supposed level of involvement wasn't anywhere near this.

[AmosArch]

The funniest thing is they lead with that line and then buried somewhere in the middle they casually admit without any acknowledgement of the lie above that one of them at least is indeed a notorious crime boss.

[Martinned]

So what if they were? Why would that make it OK to murder them?

[AmosArch]

If you break into a home with ill intent you do so at your own peril. Doesn't matter if you just wanted to steal some money rather than kill the owner. Doesn't matter if you have 3 kids and a cute dog named fluffy. I don't see anyone here shedding a tear for home robbers who FAFO.

If you try to break into the US with ill intent to try to poison our kids and our communities for profit you do so at your own peril. It doesn't matter if the deaths and havoc you are causing are just incidental, and you are such a piece of scum you simply don't give a shit instead of outright intending it. It doesn't matter if you have 3 kids and a dog named fluffy. And then on top of that they're stupid enough to continue to do this with all the recent headlines in mind on top of knowing full well the risks.

Sorry you value the lives of your fellow countrymen and children so little and are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of drug traffickers whose lives you value so much more, even more than they themselves do apparently as they knowingly continue marching off on suicide missions.

[Martinned]

If you break into a home with ill intent you do so at your own peril.

Not if the home owner lies in wait and murders you you don't.

Doesn't matter if you just wanted to steal some money rather than kill the owner.

Not for you maybe.

If you try to break into the US with ill intent to try to poison our kids and our communities for profit you do so at your own peril.

1. No. Just no.
2. That has nothing to do with murdering people thousands of miles away from the US border.

Sorry you value the lives of your fellow countrymen and children so little and are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of drug traffickers whose lives you value so much more, even more than they themselves do apparently as they knowingly continue marching off on suicide missions.

The whole point of my values is that I try to adhere to them exactly when it isn't easy. Even the tricky ones like "let's not murder people in cold blood".

[John F. Carr]

In an average American state, a homeowner can hide and wait for a burglar and blow him away if there is a real risk the burglar is dangerous. A homeowner can not set an unattended trap.

[David Nieporent]

If you break into a home with ill intent you do so at your own peril.

How about if you are 1,500 miles away from the home in question, and without even the means of getting to said home?

[Frank Drackman]

Play Stupid Games, win Stupid Prizes.

[Commenter_XY]

The drug dealers should find another line of work. As you can see, drug dealing can be fatal....for the dealers and distributors, too.

Take it up with Congress.

[Martinned]

Where/when has Congress said that it is OK to murder these people? (Who may or may not be involved in the drugs trade.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So, if Congress gave its permission you'd be OK with it?

[Martinned]

No, but then at least it would be (arguably) legal under US law. But lots of evil things are legal under US law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry that your pure heart is upset that things you consider evil are legal under US law (like free speech and the right to bear arms, for example).

[Martinned]

Like the death penalty, lifelong torture-adjacent detention, the government trashing your house without compensation, etc., etc.

[AmosArch]

He'd rather have a 100 families dead or torn apart with untold suffering over generations than one suicidal drug dealer immediately vaporized by a predator missile instead of having their skin peeled off by a rival gang 2 months later. Bask before his enlightenment fool!

[Martinned]

Yes, it's better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent person should be unlawfully blown up by the government. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view on (what was supposed to be) a libertarian blog.

[Frank Drackman]

In Medicine we have a Stat called "Number Needed to Treat" or "NNT", it's how many people you have to treat that end up not having a problem to make sure you treat the one that's going to go all Jim Henson (too long ago? OK, Oscar Wilde, wait, that's even further back, how about Bre Payton? (surely someone in this August crowd remembers her) Jeff Beck?
Example, for the Covid Jab, it was "NNV" or "Number Needed to Vaccinate" and was around 200,
and most everyone thought the Covid Shot was such a great idea (just got my latest one yesterday, I get less blank looks asking for a Black Russian at Applebee's)

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Alleged drug dealers are merely clumps of cells.

[Bob from Ohio]

Right, we are just doing very late term abortions.

[not guilty]

"Take it up with Congress."

XY, do you claim that the Congress has authorized the extrajudicial killings of these Venezuelans? When and by what statute(s)? Please be specific.

[Commenter_XY]

I claimed nothing of the sort, NG.

Eurotrash (and the rest of you) should take his (your) concerns to the US Congress, who has oversight. They can put a stop to it via impeachment and removal from office. The Congress has that power.

Congress has been remarkably circumspect; I hear crickets.

[David Nieporent]

Take it up with Congress.

Congress has already made it illegal to murder people.

[Commenter_XY]

Well counselor, it sounds like you have identified a crime. Go make a citizen's arrest of POTUS Trump (the progs will cheer you on for eternity) and and turn him over to your local police.

Take it up with Congress, b/c only Congress has the authority to make him stop.

[bernard11]

XY is definitely a 5th Avenue Trumpist.

"He shot someone on 5th Avenue? Well counselor, it sounds like you have identified a crime. Go make a citizen's arrest of POTUS Trump (the progs will cheer you on for eternity) and and turn him over to your local police."

[Martinned]

Speaking of US government murder:

The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

For years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, has helped the US locate vessels suspected of carrying drugs so that the US Coast Guard could interdict them, the sources said. That meant the ships would be stopped, boarded, its crew detained, and drugs seized.

The intelligence was typically sent to Joint Interagency Task Force South, a task force stationed in Florida that includes representatives from a number of partner nations and works to reduce the illicit drug trade.

But shortly after the US began launching lethal strikes against the boats in September, however, the UK grew concerned that the US might use intelligence provided by the British to select targets. British officials believe the US military strikes, which have killed 76 people, violate international law, the sources said. The intelligence pause began over a month ago, they said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics/uk-suspends-caribbean-intelligence-sharing-us

It's almost as if widespread human rights violations have consequences.

[NvEric]

Sorry to not have kicked the UK out of their imperialist territories in the Americas.
Sorry to not have helped Argentina regain their right to the Malvinas.

The UK never evolved, along with the rest of Europe, so Trump is only doing what you folks do best, to fit in that is.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sorry to not have helped Argentina regain their right to the Malvinas."

Let's not go overboard!

Argentina has no right to the Malvinas, it has been British since 1690, before Argentina existed.

[ThePublius]

We on this blog have been arguing about this topic for a long time without knowing many of the pertinent facts of these cases. There is a dearth of information save videos of boats being blown up, yet everyone seems free to invent their own context or backstory to support their views.

Let's take one case and ask a few questions:

1. A partially submerged 'narco-sub' is cruising in international waters, headed to the U.S. This we know.

2. Did the U.S. interdiction forces hail them on any international frequency? Did they reply? This we don't know.

3. Did the U.S. forces, assuming the answer to 2., above, is in the negative, otherwise try to get the attention of the narco-sub and implore it to heave-to? This we don't know.

4. Did the narco-sub pilots ignore both 2. and 3. above if those attempts at communication were employed? This we don't know.

5. The narco-sub was blown up. This we know.

Feel free to fill in the gaps between 1 and 5, as I know you will according to your political predilections. For me, 1 is sufficient for 5.

(In case you have any doubt, no, no one goes fishing or for a fun family cruise in a narco-sub.)

[Martinned]

For me, 1 is sufficient for 5.

Yes. That's why we all think that your online persona is a dangerous lunatic who needs psychiatric treatment. The question is whether your IRL persona does too.

[Frank Drackman]

"we all"
is doing a lot of work there.
Oh wait, you speak one of those "Low Country" Languages that even the Germans think sounds like you're trying to cough up a Pubic Hair.
So "we all" means "I"
got it

Frank

[ThePublius]

What do you mean "we?" This is a typical internet bully, wimp, hiding behind his computer in his mother's basement.

I think 1 is sufficient to assume drug smuggling and imminent harm to the U.S. population. Just as a guy coming at me menacingly with a knife is sufficient to shoot him.

[Sarcastr0]

You're ratifying killing people not in wartime with no due process.

And you love to pair that kind of casual sociopathic posting with whining about decorum.

You have fucked up priorities.

Or at least, as Martinned notes, you do when you post online.

[ThePublius]

We are in a new age now, where 'conventional' views of war and wartime justice are outdated, and politics have dragged down our ability to preserve, protect, defend the United States.

Just as one doesn't accord due process to an aggressor deploying deadly physical force, or the threat thereof, we needn't, in my opinion, accord due process to parties obviously visiting deadly consequences upon our shores.

"Not in wartime." Do you realize how ridiculous that is in this instance? Should we wait until the narcotics smugglers don uniforms, fly their flag, and then declare war on them?

What possible innocent intent could a partially submerged narco-sub headed to the U.S. have? Would you insist on employing due process in the case of an ICBM headed to the U.S.? Perhaps sue the supposed launcher of the missile in federal court, and get an arrest warrant or injunction to somehow halt or delay that threat? It is equally ridiculous to assume that one can employ due process to stop drug smugglers in court in time to avert harm.

So, yes, I am ratifying killing people without due process in these kinds of cases. Don't sail narco subs our way or you'll get killed; O.K.?

Maybe to make you happy we should have some kind of process where these smugglers could file float plans detailing when and where they are going, what they are carrying, and where they intend to land. Or maybe we should track them, tail them, and blow them up when they touch our shore, or enter our waters, having ignored interdiction efforts.

I have family members and friends injured by this scourge. I say kill all the drug smugglers.

[Sarcastr0]

By that drama pretending to be logic let’s kill all suspected drug dealers too! So many ICBMs!!

But also let’s be prissy about language at the same time!

[wvattorney13]

Did you read the article? Turns out they are only drug smugglers. Not like they are Hitler level bad people.

Plus they aren't the head of the organization, says the article. Of course nobody said that the head of the organization gets a cooler of beer and heads out on the boat. That's a strawman. Everyone said that these guys were working for the narco-terrorists.

I am waiting for their supporters on this board to come out and defend them like they did before. Aren't they mere fishermen?

[Martinned]

Who cares? You can't murder them regardless!

[CountmontyC]

The word is execute.

[Sarcastr0]

Execute? I must have missed all those criminal trials.

[David Nieporent]

I have family members and friends injured by this scourge. I say kill all the drug smugglers.

I say kill your relatives. The drug smugglers are just engaging in voluntary transactions, not hurting anyone; your relatives and friends sound like worthless losers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is a new low for you.

By your rationale, we should shoot every lawyer who has ever defended a drug dealer. But for them, all the drug dealers would have been convicted and hence drugs not available and my relatives would still be alive.

We'd have less crime if the criminal defense bar were all dead -- fewer civil rights, but less crime...

[David Nieporent]

1. Lawyers do not defend drug dealers. They defend accused drug dealers.
2. Countries that impose the death penalty for drug dealing do not have drugs as "not available."
3. Are you claiming to be Publius? I don't believe that, but otherwise, why are you talking about "my relatives" when we were discussing his?

[Life of Brian]

1. Lawyers do not defend drug dealers. They defend accused drug dealers.

Behold a classic salve-the-conscience lawyer dodge. Plenty of lawyers defend not-yet-convicted drug dealers in an attempt to prevent them from being convicted, with full knowledge that they're doing exactly that. I know you don't honestly believe otherwise.

[not guilty]

A colleague of mine from Knoxville said it best when he explained, "I have never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some there."

A criminal trial is not a search for truth. It is instead a test of the government's evidence.

[David Nieporent]

1 is a lie, and smuggling cocaine does not represent "imminent harm" to anyone. No, you can't shoot people just because you're a coward. They have to actually pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to another and using deadly force against them is the only way to safely prevent such harm.

There are drug dealers in every city in the United States; it is not lawful to shoot them just because you puritanically oppose people using drugs.

[Kazinski]

Seems typically American to me, and it clearly illustrates why Europeans have to come running for American help every time the world gets dangerous.

The Bosnians certainly know not to ask for help from Dutch peacekeepers again.

[David Nieporent]

1. A partially submerged 'narco-sub' is cruising in international waters, headed to the U.S. This we know.

We do not, in fact, know that this or any of the other boats illegally attacked on Trump's orders were "headed to the U.S."

2. Did the U.S. interdiction forces hail them on any international frequency? Did they reply? This we don't know.

I see how your definition of "know" shifts radically from one paragraph to the next. What we do know is that the administration hasn't even tried to claim that it made any attempt to contact any of the boats it illegally attacked. That makes it overwhelmingly likely it did not, because the administration's position would be much more sympathetic if it had said, "We tried to stop and seize the boats but they ignored us/violently resisted us/etc., so we had no choice but to blow them up."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pirates in international waters can be shot.

You say you actually graduated from an accredited law school?!?

[David Nieporent]

Pirates in international waters can be shot.

Once again: (1) no, they can't; and (2) these aren't pirates.

[Bunny495]

Since these pirates/narco terrorists/whatever you want to call them were shot it is obvious that they can be shot. While you may question legal issues claiming they can't be shot is like saying corner boys in big cities can't be shot; it happens almost every day.

I have spent time not only sailing in the Caribbean but also keeping up with the many online forums covering pirates in that area. There is an old saying in pirate lore 'dead men tell no tales'. I know for a fact that every single sinking of pirate boats in that area is not reported. It is the exception that one is reported.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE

[bernard11]

Pirates in international waters can be shot.

Makes one wonder why so many pirates were captured and brought to trial.

[wvattorney13]

"We do not, in fact, know that this or any of the other boats illegally attacked on Trump's orders were "headed to the U.S."

Are we at least in agreement that they are drug smugglers? Or are you guys still fighting that?

[David Nieporent]

We are not in agreement that they are drug smugglers, no. Some of them seem to be, but all of the evidence of that was compiled by the media; Trump hasn't provided one shred of evidence that any of them were.

[not guilty]

"Are we at least in agreement that they are drug smugglers? Or are you guys still fighting that?"

Assuming arguendo that they were transporting drugs, I am not aware of what federal statute(s) that doing so on the high seas would violate. And even if there is such a statute that was arguably violated, they deserved a trial before being punished. We are not in Alice's Wonderland, and Donald Trump is not the Queen of Hearts:

. . . "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
"Who cares for you?" said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

[Martinned]

At Margraten in the Netherlands 8,000 US servicement are buried and/or commemorated who losts their lives in the war against fascism in 1941-45. Among them are also black Americans, whose ability to make a contribution was severely curtailed by the segregation policies of the US army at the time. At the visitors' centre of the cemetary there used to be two panels that told that story, but those panels were removed at some point this year. Timing-wise, all we know is that:

The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, contacted the ABMC in March challenging its supposed failure to comply with Trump’s orders to cancel diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programmes across the US government. The ABMC placed its chief diversity officer, Priscilla Rayson, on “administrative leave” shortly afterwards.

The cemetary is given in perpetual lease to the US government, and operated by the ABMC, so the Dutch government has no say in what information is displayed for visitors, but a wide range of politicians from all over the political spectrum, locally and nationally, has been calling on the US government to reconsider.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/mayor-calls-for-black-liberators-to-be-commemorated-at-margraten/

[ThePublius]

"NEW HOAX JUST DROPPED

“The Trump admin removed a memorial for black soldiers”

Only when you scroll alllll the way down do they admit that it actually works on a rotation and a panel which happened to feature a black servicemember was simply rotated.

You don’t hate the media enough"

Per Newsweek:
"The ABMC (American Battle Monuments Commission) has been approached for comment. Hélène Chaulin, a spokesperson for the commission in Paris, said the panels were "designed to be rotated regularly throughout the exhibition" to showcase different soldiers' life stories, according to Dutch newspaper NRC.

The panel featuring Pruitt is "currently not on display, but not out of rotation," Chaulin told NRC."

I guess Martinned missed that part.

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1988028708423172137

[Martinned]

Libsoftiktok? Really?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Newsweek? Really?

Ever consider doing your own research?

[Bob from Ohio]

The ABMC told Newsweek in a statement that the visitors’ center at Margraten had 15 magnetic panels “designed to be removed and rotated throughout the life of the exhibit to highlight as many individual stories as possible.”

“Of these, four currently feature African American service members buried at the cemetery,” the commission said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/memorial-to-black-us-soldiers-who-died-in-ww2-quietly-removed

[Joe_dallas]

Martineed - you are both extremely gullible and fall for any conspiracy theory.

As Publius notes - "The ABMC (American Battle Monuments Commission) has been approached for comment. Hélène Chaulin, a spokesperson for the commission in Paris, said the panels were "designed to be rotated regularly throughout the exhibition" to showcase different soldiers' life stories, according to Dutch newspaper NRC.

[Martinned]

That reminds me, I have a great bridge you might like to buy. I'll give you a great price!

[Joe_dallas]

Publius & I both exposed your error and your gullibility.

Try to learn instead of residing in your leftist echo chamber.

[Bob from Ohio]

He just believes every anti-American and anti-Israeli slander.

Jealous of more important and better nations.

[Martinned]

A group of South Africans who are famous for their racism (rightly or wrongly), has called on the US Regime to shut TFU and leave them out of US culture wars.

The South African government has repeatedly tried to correct the White House, providing statistics that disprove these claims – for example the fact that Black people are by far the worst affected by violent crime and that whites still own the majority of commercial farmland – to no avail.

Now, some white Afrikaners themselves, as well as Afrikaans groups, are calling out what they say are the U.S. administration's "lies" and "falsehoods" in their name.

"We reject the narrative that casts Afrikaners as victims of racial persecution in post-apartheid South Africa," a group of over 40 prominent Afrikaners said in an open letter last month. "We are not pawns in America's culture wars."

The group included writers, journalists, musicians, university lecturers and Christian clergy.
(...)
Christo van der Rheede represented white farmers for years as head of the biggest agricultural organization in South Africa. He now leads the FW De Klerk Foundation, named for the former Afrikaans president who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela for their roles in ending apartheid.

"It is now very important for all South Africans to unite and refute the statements by President Donald Trump…that Afrikaners are being killed and slaughtered and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated. This is simply not true," van der Rheede said after Trump's G20 announcement.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/10/nx-s1-5603421/g20-afrikaners-trump-south-africa

[wvattorney13]

This is not a group "famous for their racism." A simple visit to the organization's website shows this little gem:

"The Foundation’s vision is to be a self-sustaining organisation that promotes – and that will, in the long term, continue to promote –
...
national unity, reconciliation and the accommodation of diversity"
https://fwdeklerk.org/about-us/

It is more fake news crap from the NPR that just lies with impunity. It is good thing they were defunded.

[Martinned]

This is not a group "famous for their racism."

No, Afrikaners are.

[wvattorney13]

This is just chasing your tail. There are some very conservative Afrikaners who are racist but the article quotes a very liberal group of Afrikaners who made the point that they did.

You imply that a racist group nonetheless supports your point. It would be like saying of people in the United States: "White people, who are famous for their racism, nonetheless support Kamala Harris..." and then quote a white group affiliated with the DNC for support.

[Sarcastr0]

He said 'famous for their racism (rightly or wrongly).'

He's speaking about reputation, not facts.

The point is this admin's performative focus on giving benefits only to whites is so openly bigoted it's got the supposed beneficiaries not wanting to associate with it.

Way to go Miller.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you ever met anyone *in* the ANC?

I had a grad class with a few of them. They are worse racists than the Boers ever could have considered being.

[bernard11]

I had a grad class with a few of them.

Doubtful. When and where was this?

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : " ...admin's performative focus on giving benefits only to whites..."

Given everything is a lie, gimmick, or stunt with this White House, it's not surprising to see them recycle their theatrics. After all, if the dupes & losers fall for it one time (insert Ed's name here), they'll probably do so again. And since some of them are waking-up to the fact Trump doesn't give the slightest shit about them (Ed's name, alas, doesn't go here), Trump's efforts are getting a little frantic.

For instance, he's recycling his "save Afrikaners" shtick with Nigeria, claiming the U.S. might need to take military action to stop "genocide against Christians". Of course every word he says is a lie, including "an" and "the". As with South African, he's saying general violence affecting everyone is directed against one pet group alone. In the case of South Africa, it's high rates of violent crime against White and Black alike. In the case of Nigeria, it's a civil war killing Muslims and Christians both. With either case, Trump assumes his braindead supporters won't trouble over the facts. They never do.

And - of course - all his talk of military action is just empty babble. But Nicholas Kristof of the NYT makes an interesting point: If Trump is concerned about Nigerian Christians, his best move would be to restore foreign aid. That would easily save a hundred-times more of them than are currently dying from any sectarian violence. But Trump doesn't care any more about Nigerian Christians that he does for his supporters. They're all losers to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/opinion/trump-christians-nigeria.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

The New York Times shamefully said the same thing about Hitler killing the Jews.

Christians ARE being massacred and the question is do we stop it, or not?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose SCOTUS rules that POTUS Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs by IEEPA.

Then what:
Does Congress pass legislation to grant the authority? Y/N
Do the markets gyrate in the absence of certainty? Y/N
Does POTUS Trump and Congress just ignore SCOTUS? Y/N

[John F. Carr]

Congress will not ratify or authorize the tariffs. They not popular enough among Republicans and many Democrats will vote no just to be anti-Trump.

The risk is priced in now. There will be market movement when the decision is released.

[Martinned]

- Trump imposes the tariffs under one of the handful of other laws that do explicitly give him that authority.

[Josh R]

I think this is correct even though SCOTUS would be doing a Trump a favor by getting rid of these unpopular tariffs.

[David Nieporent]

But those other laws do not allow him to impose utterly arbitrary tariffs on Americans importing goods from random countries for arbitrary periods of time, so it's not the same. There's no law that allows Trump to try to spring a criminal like Bolsonaro from prison via tariffs, let alone to use them to punish Canada because one of its provinces aired an ad humiliating Trump.

[Josh R]

He will try, which will extend the life of tariffs until the courts (eventually SCOTUS) weigh in again.

[wvattorney13]

No, no, and no.

Trump chalks it up as a win. Says the swamp is deeper than he thought. Tried to do what he could for regular Americans, but they won't let him. Every person that gets laid off in the United States is invited to the White House and held up as a sacrifice on the altar of the Supreme Court.

[Bwaaah]

You nailed it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Every person that gets laid off in the United States is invited to the White House and held up as a sacrifice on the altar of the Supreme Court."

SCOTUS, knowing that Trump would do this, rules in his favor.

[ducksalad]

1. No. There is no constituency for random on-one-day-off-the-next tariffs. Businesses and unions that are actually protectionist don't want ones that come off arbitrarily because a foreign leader flattered our president or some foreign country agrees to arrest drug dealers.

2. They will not gyrate more than they do now, because maximum uncertainty is what we already have. Tariffs depend on single TV commercials from Ontario or trials in Brazil, stuff that no one in the US controls and can happen every day.

3. Did you mean to say disobey? See wvattorney for Trump's response. Congress will do nothing.

[Bunny495]

Suppose Trump bribes a few million voters with a $US2k check as a tariff bonus? How popular will the tariffs be then?

[ducksalad]

If someone like Mamdani proposed to tax NYC businesses 50 to 100% on certain transactions with non-NYC businesses, and then distribute the take in the form of $2K checks to NYC residents:

(a) It would be precisely the same as what Trump is proposing.
(b) We'd all know what to call it, it starts with a C and its victims are commemorated on November 7,

[Bunny495]

Does the commerce clause ring a bell.

[Martinned]

So have we figured out yet why it is morally and legally OK for Trump to pardon his co-conspirators in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election result?

[Frank Drackman]

I have

[Joe_dallas]

Did you complain when Biden pardoned his cronies?

Did you complain when Clinton did it?

[SRG2]

Did you complain when Clinton and Biden did it?

[Martinned]

When did Biden and Clinton pardon their own criminal co-conspirators?

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 10 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
When did Biden and Clinton pardon their own criminal co-conspirators?

Is your head under a rock - or are just living in an echo chamber.
Quite frankly your response is pure idiocy.

[David Nieporent]

That's bookkeeper_joe's way of saying, "Yes, I'm full of shit again. I don't know anything about the topic."

[Joe_dallas]

That is dishonest dave - living in the same echo chamber -
Hunter should have been your first hint.

Are both of you showing your typical dishonesty?

[David Nieporent]

Once again, bookkeeper_joe unable to cite a single fact in support of his claims.

[Joe_dallas]

Once again dishonest dave - ignores well known facts - Typical pathetic job hiding his partisanship. How many times this week have you been caught lying and/or just being straight dishonest?

[David Nieporent]

ignores well known facts

So well known that you don't know any of them!

[Joe_dallas]

I provided one of many - you chose to dodge

Auditioning again for the propaganda arm of the democratic party

[Joe_dallas]

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/comer-on-fox-news-biden-crime-family-pardons-serve-as-a-confession-of-their-corruption/

[Joe_dallas]

DN - do you any interest in being honest ?
Showing some integrity?
Ethics?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-pardons-family-trump-white-hous-caee326c4723a4ba6d972f7daf750a0b

[David Nieporent]

If all that you meant to refer to by "well-known facts" was that Joe Biden had pardoned his family members, I concede that point. But the problem is that if that's what you meant, it's irrelevant to the discussion, which was about Joe Biden (and Clinton,¹ for that matter), "pardon[ing] their own criminal co-conspirators." You have presented no evidence² of any criminal conspiracy involving Joe Biden — because there is no such evidence — so he can't have had any criminal co-conspirators to pardon.
​
​
¹ You don't specify which Clinton; Hillary of course never had the pardon power, so it would have to mean Bill, but setting aside everything else that would've had to have been at least a quarter-century ago.

² Neither of your links present any evidence of any such criminal conspiracy involving Joe Biden. (Jim Comer isn't smart enough to spell evidence, let alone to present any. He presents a handful of disconnected facts, none of which add up to crimes, let alone crimes that Joe Biden conspired to commit.)

[Joe_dallas]

Long winded dissertation that dodges the facts.
Dishonest Dave

[bernard11]

Long winded dissertation that dodges the facts.

You don't know what a fact is.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal, an alleged co-conspirator.

[ducksalad]

It's legally OK because back in 1781 it was assumed the Electoral College would be composed of carefully selected men of wisdom and integrity, who in turn would choose a president unlikely to abuse the pardon authority. Things didn't turn out how they expected.

Proposed constitutional amendment of the day:

1. The president may not pardon acts committed by himself, or by those acting under his instructions.

2. In cases of impeachment, upon conviction, Congress may choose to reverse any pardon granted by the impeached officer.

[David Nieporent]

Not to rain on your parade, but nobody had ever heard of the Electoral College in 1781.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1791*. Why are you such a -- well, rhymes with "rick"?

* For some reason, this is a common mistake -- people remember the 1787 & 1789 *and* remember the "1" but forget the new decade.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's a prick because its his nature. Like the scorpion on the frog's back

[ducksalad]

Thanks, no excuse. Dr. Ed understands what is wrong with my brain wiring.

[Estragon]

I fully expect the John Eastman rehabilitation tour to begin around here any day now. Tragically for blog-favorite John and shitweasel Jeffrey “Smart Thermostats” Clark, these pardons have seemingly come too late for a position in this administration. They are also in the unfortunate position of probably having been passed by, ideologically, by people like Paul Ingrassia who are now favored. A single tear rolls down my cheek— especially for Clark, who I’m sure thought he was going to be high up in DOJ at this point as a reward for his actions.

I wonder if Eastman ran for California AG again he could expect Eugene and David’s full support as before? To my knowledge they haven’t reconsidered any of the glowing praise they lavished upon him years ago.

[Commenter_XY]

The pardon power is absolute, eurotrash. There is nothing to figure out.

[Martinned]

Chicago is still being occupied by the Regime:

I want you to understand what it is like to live in Chicago during this time.

Every day my phone buzzes. It is a neighborhood group: four people were kidnapped at the corner drugstore. A friend a mile away sends a Slack message: she was at the scene when masked men assaulted and abducted two people on the street. A plumber working on my pipes is distraught, and I find out that two of his employees were kidnapped that morning. A week later it happens again.

An email arrives. Agents with guns have chased a teacher into the school where she works. They did not have a warrant. They dragged her away, ignoring her and her colleagues’ pleas to show proof of her documentation. That evening I stand a few feet from the parents of Rayito de Sol and listen to them describe, with anguish, how good Ms. Diana was to their children. What it is like to have strangers with guns traumatize your kids. For a teacher to hide a three-year-old child for fear they might be killed. How their relatives will no longer leave the house. I hear the pain and fury in their voices, and I wonder who will be next.

Understand what it is to pray in Chicago. On September 19th, Reverend David Black, lead pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Chicago, was praying outside the ICE detention center in Broadview when a DHS agent shot him in the head with pepper balls. Pepper balls are never supposed to be fired at the head because they can seriously injure, or even kill. “We could hear them laughing as they were shooting us from the roof,” Black recalled. He is not the only member of the clergy ICE has assaulted. Methodist pastor Hannah Kardon was violently arrested on October 17th, and Baptist pastor Michael Woolf was shot with pepper balls on November 1st.

Understand what it is to sleep in Chicago. On the night of September 30th, federal agents rappelled from a Black Hawk helicopter to execute a raid on an apartment building on the South Shore. Roughly three hundred agents deployed flashbangs, busted down doors, and took people indiscriminately. US citizens, including women and children, were grabbed from their beds, marched outside without even a chance to dress, zip-tied, and loaded into vans. Residents returned to find their windows and doors broken and their belongings stolen.

Understand what it is to lead Chicago. On October 3rd, Alderperson Jesse Fuentes asked federal agents to produce a judicial warrant and allow an injured man at the hospital access to an attorney. The plainclothes agents grabbed Fuentes, handcuffed her, and took her outside the building. Her lawsuit is ongoing. On October 21st, Representative Hoan Huynh was going door-to-door to inform businesses of their immigration rights when he was attacked by six armed CBP agents, who boxed in his vehicle and pointed a gun at his face. Huynh says the agents tried to bash open his car window.

Understand what it is to live in Chicago. On October 9th, Judge Ellis issued a temporary restraining order requiring that federal agents refrain from deploying tear gas or shooting civilians without an imminent threat, and requiring two audible warnings. ICE and CBP have flaunted these court orders. On October 12th, federal agents shoved an attorney to the ground who tried to help a man being detained in Albany Park. Agents refused to identify themselves or produce a warrant, then deployed tear gas without warning. On October 14th, agents rammed a car on the East Side, then tear-gassed neighbors and police.

On October 23rd, federal agents detained seven people, including two U.S. citizens and an asylum seeker, in Little Village. Two worked for Alderperson Michael Rodriguez: his chief of staff Elianne Bahena, and police district council member Jacqueline Lopez. Again in Little Village, agents tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed protestors, seizing two high school students and a security guard, among others. Alderperson Byron Sigcho-Lopez reported that agents assaulted one of the students, who had blood on his face. On October 24th, agents in Lakeview emerged from unmarked cars, climbed a locked fence to enter a private yard, and kidnapped a construction worker. As neighbors gathered, they deployed four tear gas canisters. That same day, a few blocks away, men with rifles jumped out of SUVs and assaulted a man standing at a bus stop.

“They were beating him,” said neighbor Hannah Safter. “His face was bleeding”.

They returned minutes later and attacked again. A man from the Laugh Factory, a local comedy club, had come outside with his mother and sister. “His mom put her body in between them, and one of the agents kicked her in the face”.

Understand what it is to be a family in Chicago. On October 25th, agents arrested a 70-year-old man and threw a 67-year old woman to the ground in Old Irving Park, then deployed tear gas, disrupting a children’s Halloween parade. One parent spoke to NBC news about her two-year-old child’s response to the gas. The same day, agents deployed tear gas against residents of Avondale.

“Kids dressed in Halloween costumes walking to a parade do not pose an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer. They just don’t. And you can’t use riot control weapons against them,” Judge Ellis said to Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino.

Understand how the government speaks about Chicago. On November 3rd, paralegal Dayanne Figueroa, a US citizen, was driving to work when federal agents crashed into her car, drew their guns, and dragged her from the vehicle. Her car was left behind, coffee still in the cup holder, keys still in the car. The Department of Homeland Security blamed her, claiming she “violently resisted arrest, injuring two officers.” You can watch the video for yourself.

“All uses of force have been more than exemplary,” Bovino stated in a recent deposition. He is, as Judge Ellis put it, lying. Bovino personally threw a tear gas canister in Little Village. He claimed in a sworn deposition that he was struck in the head by a rock before throwing the canister, and when videos showed no rock, admitted that he lied about the event. When shown video of himself tackling peaceful protestor Scott Blackburn, Bovino refused to acknowledge that he tackled the man. Instead, he claimed, “That’s not a reportable use of force. The use of force was against me.”

“I find the government’s evidence to be simply not credible,” said Judge Ellis in her November 6th ruling. “The use of force shocks the conscience.”

Understand what it is to be Chicago. To carry a whistle and have the ICIRR hotline in your phone. To wake up from nightmares of shouting militiamen and guns in your face. To rehearse every day how to calmly refuse entry, how to identify a judicial warrant, how to film and narrate an assault. To wake to helicopters buzzing your home, to feel your heart rate spike at the car horns your neighbors use to alert each other to ICE and CBP enforcement. To know that perhaps three thousand of your fellow Chicagoans have been disappeared by the government, but no one really knows for sure. To know that many of those seized were imprisoned a few miles away, as many as a hundred and fifty people in a cell, denied access to food, water, sanitation, and legal representation. To know that many of these agents—masked, without badge numbers or body cams, and refusing to identify themselves—will never face justice. To wonder what they tell their children.

The masked thugs who attack my neighbors, who point guns at elected officials and shoot pastors with pepper balls, who tear-gas neighborhoods, terrify children, and drag teachers and alderpeople away in handcuffs are not unprecedented. We knew this was coming a year ago, when Trump promised mass deportations. We knew it was coming, and seventy-seven million of us voted for it anyway.

This weight presses on me every day. I am flooded with stories. There are so many I cannot remember them all; cannot keep straight who was gassed, beaten, abducted, or shot. I write to leave a record, to stare at the track of the tornado. I write to leave a warning. I write to call for help.

I want you to understand, regardless of your politics, the historical danger of a secret police. What happens when a militia is deployed in our neighborhoods and against our own people. Left unchecked their mandate will grow; the boundaries of acceptable identity and speech will shrink. I want you to think about elections in this future. I want you to understand that every issue you care about—any hope of participatory democracy—is downstream of this.

I want you to understand what it is to love Chicago. To see your neighbors make the heartbreaking choice between showing up for work or staying safe. To march two miles long, calling out: “This is what Chicago sounds like!” To see your representatives put their bodies on the line and their voices in the fight. To form patrols to walk kids safely to school. To join rapid-response networks to document and alert your neighbors to immigration attacks. For mutual aid networks to deliver groceries and buy out street vendors so they can go home safe. To see your local journalists take the federal government to court. To talk to neighbor after neighbor, friend after friend, and hear yes, yes, it’s all hands on deck.

I want you to understand Chicago.

https://aphyr.com/posts/397-i-want-you-to-understand-chicago

[ThePublius]

I'm calling bullshit on this entire essay - a load of unsubstantiated, activist crap.

[Martinned]

Gee, who could have seen that coming?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just a mix of minimal facts taken out of context with flat our falsehoods and wild language.

No one is being "abducted". Suspected illegal immigrants are being detained pursuant to law and ICE is not a "secret police".

[Sarcastr0]

It does seem a bit too good to be true, but your super confident and unsupported pronouncement seems more about what you want to believe than any actual critical thinking.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

The "teacher dragged out of the school where she works" was a woman who ran from a traffic stop past security into a school across the street where she neither works nor has kids attending

[David Nieporent]

No, that is false, another Tricia McLaughlin lie. Diana Patricia Santillana Galeano was a teacher at the daycare facility at which she was arrested. Armed agents stormed into the school, without a warrant, to arrest her.

[Armchair]

In other news, Chicago is on track to have its lowest murder rate in 6 years.

Maybe all those feds are doing something...

[SRG2]

What's happening to murder rates elsewhere?

[David Nieporent]

So your position is that Trump's tactics are utterly unnecessary since these crime rates were previously achieved just a few short years ago without them?

[Armchair]

A "few short years ago", Chicago had a very high murder rate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even if this crap were true, FAFO.

I really am surprised we haven't had an Ashley Babbit yet as ICE has been attacked worse than the USCP ever were on Jan 6th.

[Bunny495]

While that may not be the best analogy I agree with your surprise. I totally expect at some point things will get out of hand. No one is buying the 'mostly peaceful demonstration' crap. Now that we know it is legal to throw foot longs at LEOs things are bound to escalate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ashley Babbit was unarmed, and no threat to the THREE husky police officers who were about to arrest her. (And who were in the field of fire when she was shot -- THAT is my issue with the shooting.)

Conversely -- shots fired. Under even the most conservative rules of engagement, if you've got incoming rounds, you have the right to shoot back. Sooner or later, ICE will and then things will get "interesting."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Stop the ste!

The last words of Ashtray Babbitt that will inspire a new generation of patriots! Gee, I wonder what she meant by “ste”?? 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

You are quite the scumbag to mock the murder of an American vet and on Veterans day no less.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, ICE utterly failed to present any evidence in court of these attacks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/11/09/border-patrol-agents-face-shots-fired-vehicle-rammings-bricks-thrown-chicago

[Sarcastr0]

That is not evidence in court.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if the American right has learned nothing from Abu Graib.

In interviews, however, the men sent to the prison described frequent, intense physical and psychological abuse. Beyond the beatings, tear gas and trips to the isolation room, the men said they were mocked or ignored by medical personnel, forced to spend 24 hours a day under harsh lights and made to drink from wells of fetid water.

The New York Times interviewed 40 of the former prisoners, many at their homes in cities and towns across Venezuela. We then asked a group of independent forensic experts who help investigate torture allegations to assess the credibility of the men’s testimony.

Several doctors from that team, known as the Independent Forensic Expert Group, said the men’s testimonies, along with photographs of what they described as their injuries, were consistent and credible, providing “compelling evidence” to support accusations of torture. The group’s assessments in other cases have been used in courts around the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/world/americas/el-salvador-prison-migrants.html

Torturing people is wrong, regardless of whether they are (convicted) criminals. I can't believe that that really needs explaining.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretend it's just one Terrorist, but he knows where there's a bomb that's going to kill your Pediophile King, you're saying you can't tickle him a bit? maybe slap him around some? Taser to the Balls?? Shit, I got "tortured" worse being the only White Kid on my 8th grade Basketball team and I wasn't planning on blowing up anyone.

Frank

[bernard11]

So you assume that the torture victim is telling the truth, and that there is no better way to elicit information.

[Estragon]

“I can't believe that that really needs explaining.”

Is that really so unbelievable? I am reminded of the recent comments of Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi:

“Indeed, those detained at Sde Teiman are terrorists and terror operatives of the worst kind. It is imperative to bring them to justice. Yet this does not diminish our duty to investigate when there is reasonable suspicion of violence against a detainee. Unfortunately, this basic understanding — that there are actions which must never be taken even against the vilest of detainees — no longer convinces everyone.”

[John F. Carr]

Americans learned to outsource so Americans wouldn't be responsible. By the end of the Bush administration there was a lawsuit over a detainee about to be transferred from an American-run prison in the Middle East to Saudia Arabia.

[grb]

Martinned : "Torturing people is wrong, regardless of whether they are (convicted) criminals."

Only 13% of those disappeared into that El Salvadorian prison had any serious criminal accusation or conviction from anywhere in the world. That's also in the article. Most were just warm bodies with brown skin for another Trump stunt.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Once again, with respect to Cheney and torture the issue was really attempts to illicit false confessions and not really torture. False confessions are something that are unAmerican because they undermine justice. Torture is a completely different matter but most Americans support torture in order to prevent terrorist attacks.

[Martinned]

Hang on, I thought arresting people for "just" praying was wrong?

Federal authorities told demonstrators Friday that there would be “no more prayer” in front of or inside the Broadview ICE facility, in a move that mystified local leaders and raised legal questions.

A federal representative delivered the news to a huddle of faith leaders and activists standing outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility Friday, speaking after faith leaders were denied entry to the building for the third time Friday.

Broadview Police Chief Thomas Mills, whose department helped facilitate the phone call, said that he was “trying to figure out” in discussions with Mayor Katrina Thompson and an attorney if a federal agency could legally ban religious gatherings on land owned by the village. Religious groups previously have been allowed to practice outside the facility, he said.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/11/07/feds-tell-faith-leaders-no-more-prayer-outside-broadview-facility/

[Dr. Ed 2]

No different from banning prayers outside abortion clinics.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you mean in the US?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You cannot ban prayers outside abortion clinics in the US. In Martinned's article, it's not clear what's being banned, although some of the quotes about "no more prayer" and "no more religious gatherings" raise questions.

Martinned is trying to imply that this is similar to the incident in the UK where someone was arrested for violating an order that specifically banned praying after being interrogated on the nature of his prayer, but he doesn't have the receipts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It is. If that happened, that would be bad. But your article doesn't show any evidence of that happening, unlike in the UK.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and to all of those who served:
Happy Veterans Day!

[Frank Drackman]

Ironically, since I've been a Veteran I've worked every Veteran's day. And did you know the VA schedules Veteran's disability exams on Veteran's day? Typical VA, you've got a Veteran injured serving his Country, and you make him show up for his Exam on the one day dedicated to Veterans.
Started off just as the price you pay for being a gas passer, Surgical Emergencies not taking Holidays, now I'm like Cal Ripkin, just doing it for the record books. (only
and happy belated Marine Corpse Birthday!!!!

Frank (only 2,607 to go!!")

[Swede425]

LOL!
I got a claim approved (finally) and the VA let me know on a Saturday. I didn't know that side of the VA even worked on Saturday. And yes, I did go to THREE separate providers because they messed up TWICE. In case anybody was wondering why government healthcare is so expensive.

[Bunny495]

As a disabled 100% service connected veteran I am currently madder than a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I misplaced my smartphone that was used for MFA (Multi-Factor Authentication). After spending two days last week talking to morons at ID.me and Login.gov I was advised to delete my my.health.va account and create a new one with my new phone number. Once I did that and tried to log on I was informed I needed to request a snail mail letter that would arrived in 5-10 days with instructions describing how to create my new account. Seems like Veteran's Day does not count as one of those days. I am not a happy camper.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never heard of hurry up and wait?

[Frank Drackman]

In the early 80's Saturday Night Live had a viewer vote on whether to ban Andy Kaufman, (typical SNL, banning someone who was actually funny) I believe Andy lost, which became moot when he cashed in at the Big Casino a few years later (or DID he???) The "Conspiracy" should do the same, (for a "Conspiracy" I don't see much evidence of any "Conspiring")
I nominate "Martinned"
Some might vote for me (please do, all of your wildest dreams will come true!)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

If memory serves, the Kaufman bit was a takeoff on Eddie Murphy's Larry the Lobster bit.

[Frank Drackman]

Did the Lobster have large Talons????

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eddie Murphy was FUNNY. I loved his "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood."

[apedad]

Trump saying 600,000 Chinese students could come to the US draws MAGA backlash

President Donald Trump seemingly caught his loyal conservative base off-guard and sparked backlash by saying he would allow 600,000 Chinese students into American universities.

That would be a departure for the Trump administration after it added new vetting for student visas, moved to block foreign enrollment at Harvard and expanded the grounds for terminating international students’ ability to study in the United States.

https://apnews.com/article/chinese-student-visas-trump-maga-dce4e064ea61a4df090865668ca48cde

Make America Great Again - by bringing in 600K Chinese.

SMH

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when 19 Chinese hijack jets and fly them into buildings.

[apedad]

I prefer to focus on real, current threats (as opposed to your hypotheticals).

"The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States."

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-china-threat

[Frank Drackman]

But they make such good Drones!
The DJI Drones come with an Altitude restriction of 400 feet, but just found out you can manually increase it to 1,500 feet, (You know, for "legitimate" purposes like inspecting a Cell Tower, or in my case, just because it's really cool to fly a Drone 1,500 feet in the air)
the Mini 4K is just under 1/2 a pound (with battery) to avoid that Pesky FAA Registration/Licensing Requirement, (even says it right on the side, "249gm")
Flew it just under 1,500 feet Sunday, with gusts up to 20mph it was a bit "Sporty", flew it a mile away and back, and with the tail wind got up to 35 mph.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, such good drones, right up until Xi presses a button and you find yourself in a live remake of Maximum Overdrive.

[Bunny495]

Have you actually touched a DJI product. I would not ask if you have piloted one.

[Bunny495]

DJI is currently in the administration's crosshairs. Saying they make good drones is an understatement. I (along with literally thousands of others) have been using them to capture video footage for some time. Nothing else even come close. While I am currently using DLog-M with auto ISO as my video container to get 17.7 stops with my Mavic 4 Pro Creator I use to use ProRes 442 with my Mavic 3 Pro Cine. No other drone comes close to producing the image quality DJI's flying cameras can.

The FCC has recently voted itself the power to retroactively revoke previously authorizations. While current owners will not have their equipment bricked spare parts/batteries and software updates will likely not be available and the resale value will crater. There will be a lot of unhappy owners. Any realistic alternative that can provide the something close the ease of use to produce top tier image quality starts at five figures and will be a multi-operator rig.

Bottom line is this is a big pile of shit.

[Bwaaah]

Did you hear the one about the Chinese terrorist mom? She breaks into houses with children, and when she's gone, all the math homework is done.

[ducksalad]

It's a good thing in all ways for all of us.

- For US business, science, and technology, it's 600K highly skilled people.
- For US universities, an injection of students and out-of-state tuition money just when domestic enrollment is passing its peak and budgets are tight.
- For trade warriors and foreign policy hawks, denying them 600K of their best people far outweighs the damage on this side due to industrial espionage.
- For Trump supporters, it's an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty by reversing everything they claimed to believe until yesterday.
- For Christian nationalists, it'll provide a convenient target for their grievances and fear-mongering to replace the South Americans being deported.

[M L]

ducksalad,

Your argument is interesting. If 600K is good, would 6 million be even more good (about 10x as much?) 60 million? And so on.

Just on the point about universities, I think they actually need to be significantly restructured and downsized, for the good of the higher education system.

[ducksalad]

Glad you find it interesting.

How many? As many as universities care to admit. Rough guess of how many that is? Suppose they'd only want ones who would be in the top 10% of the class here, including themselves in the total. That would limit it to about 1.8M max if the pool of excellent students was infinite.

But we wouldn't want to pick them all from China, so 600K is actually not a bad number to toss out there. Trump must have had an advisor who thought this through. Another 600K from India, the other 200K scattered.

No specific country quotas of course, but that's about how it would work out.

General remark on colleges: There was a time when we attempted to college educate the top third or so. Now we are trying to educate the top two thirds. Whether you think that was a good decision or not, it explains a lot.

[M L]

apedad,

What do you think of the plan to bring in 600,000 Chinese students? Good or bad? In terms of the job market for Americans, and things like that. I wasn't clear from your comment what you thought of it.

[Nelson]

There aren’t enough Americans to fill all the jobs that American companies create.

We have a thriving, vibrant economy (with periodic dips due to the world economy or tariff policies) that demands more quality, high-skill employees than our own population creates. We are, in that way, a victim of our own success.

And before you complain about foreigners “stealing” American jobs because Americans aren’t all employed in their fields, remember this: all employees aren’t worth employing. Some are lazy or damaging to group cohesion or incompetent or just generally suck at their jobs. You know it because you know people like that who work with you (although not for long, if you’re lucky).

As someone who has hired and fired a lot of people over the years, I can assure you that finding good employees is not easy and you need a large pool to find a few good ones.

[ThePublius]

Martinned, as of this moment exactly 1/3 of the comments in this thread are yours. Many are quite long, too. Will you please cut it out? You treat these open threads as your own soapbox, and it's dramatically lowering the enjoyment of the entire experience. (Not to mention that most of what you post is virulently anti-American and/or anti-Trump. It's tiring.)

[Frank Drackman]

I'll take that as a "Ban Martinned" vote.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's just basking in free speech that is restricted in many parts of the EU.
Of course we have enough home grown long form shit posters (you know who they are).

[apedad]

C'mon now . . . Prof. Blackman is doing his best.

[Martinned]

I'm basking in the free speech that I have here in the EU, in order to remind you of truths that are censored by the Regime in the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Free Speech paid for with millions of Amuricans blood, and you Merde-Stains don't even have the common courtesy to say "Merci'"
Borrowing on what Patton said,
"We're fighting/fought the wrong Army"

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

He does make me regret saving Europe 3 times last century.

But you are unfair, Holland lasted one whole day fighting the Nazis!

[Commenter_XY]

I don't regret saving them, BfO. They are ingrates, though.

[Martinned]

I'm sorry that you find the truth about the US Regime inconvenient. I suggest you ask prof. Volokh for your money back.

[ThePublius]

Fortunately, I don't take much at all of what you have to say or what you post as the truth. I'm usually right. You're just a bitter Euro trash soul who hates America, probably out of some deep-seated jealousy.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm usually right

[ThePublius]

About what Martinned has to say, or what he posts as the truth. Context matters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Regime "

The president and both houses had elections a year ago. Its not a Regime but the duly elected government of the world's oldest democracy.

You just hate America, because you live in a second rate unimportant country.

[Joe_dallas]

along with often times having an anti-semitic theme

[Longtobefree]

The site has a button to fix that - - - - - - - -

[Bob from Ohio]

He's a good source of amusement but his constant long winded spamming here is tedious.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as "anti-American and anti-Trump"; those are opposites.

[Joe_dallas]

anti-American and anti-Trump, woke, leftists and now faux "libertarian" are all synomyns

[Nelson]

Right, because we’ve all noticed how libertarian this President is. *eyeroll*

[Bunny495]

This is the reason Al Gore invented the mute button.

[Nelson]

That made me laugh out loud. Well done, sir.

[wvattorney13]

Does anyone support Trump's proposed 50 year mortgage plan? Sorry guys, here is where I check out.

The solution for homes not being affordable to the regular Joe? Make it to where the regular Joe can't buy homes. Problem solved.

[ThePublius]

I don't support it. I think it's a terrible idea, and that it will have the exact opposite effect, of making homes more expensive. For example, do you know why college is so expensive in the U.S.? It's because there is plenty of money available, via student loans.

If you really wanted to regulate the price of homes lower, you would do so by outlawing mortgages longer than 15 or 20 years.

[wvattorney13]

That's my thought. Back in the days where you needed 20% down and pay it off in 15 years that naturally limited the pool of buyers keeping costs down.

Now that every politician is trying to make homes more "affordable" there has been an explosion in the number of people eligible, sometimes requiring no money down, and 30 year terms.

More people are convinced to go into terrible loans increasing the number of buyers and driving home prices up to levels where even people who did save find themselves "required" to take out the risky loan products.

I agree. If anything, it goes in the wrong direction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Inflation, is there anything it can't do?
Let's not overlook the incessant rise in property taxes (you know the rent you pay to the local government for the right to own a home). In many place these taxes are as high or higher than mortgage payments.

[wvattorney13]

The so called "impact" fees that many communities enact to keep new homes from being built and give preference to current residents? That should be step 1 for the feds to outlaw them.

[Joe_dallas]

WV - several good observations

As Publious notes - tuition has risen much faster than the rate of inflation primarily due to the ease of obtaining student loans.

The 2008 financial crisis was caused by the massive increase in money available for lending for all types of borrowing, the sub prime lending for homes was just a small piece of the 2008 financial crisis. The blame belongs to greenspan for creating the financial lending bubble.

[Brett Bellmore]

I seem to recall an awful lot of Congressional involvement there.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

[Joe_dallas]

yes - As much as the talking points blamed greedy Wall Street, one has to remember which comes first , the chicken or the egg.

In this case, the increase in funds available for lending came first. Risk criteria almost always drop as the bubble gets bigger (more funds available for lending). Blame belongs with Greenspan

[Joe_dallas]

Brett Bellmore 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I seem to recall an awful lot of Congressional involvement there."

In somewhat similar vain, the fdic limit increase in 1980 from 40k to $100k (amendment added by Rep St Germain? as I recall) helped fuel the SL crisis in large part the lowering credit standards at that time

[Kenneth Almquist]

If citing Peter J. Wallison is the best you’ve got, you’ve got nothing. In 2006, Wallison was fine with the GSE (meaning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) underwriting standards.

The principal risk of the GSEs is what is known as interest rate risk, and comes from the fact that they have borrowed over a trillion dollars in order to buy and hold a portfolio of mortgages of roughly the same size. If interest rates rise or fall sharply, they can suffer huge losses.

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/moral-hazard-on-steroids/

[Poxigah146]

If the federal government stopped guaranteeing mortgages, that would also drive prices down.

As would putting an excise tax on the 3% mortgages, and eliminating the capital gains exclusion.

[Joe_dallas]

Assuming your comment is on the $250k/$500k capital gain exclusion on the sale of personal residence, that would be a bad idea. For many (if not most cases), a large majority of the gain is phantom gain from inflation, and not an actual economic gain. Its one of the valid justifications for the lower capital gain rates since a large portion of gains is often illusionary inflation gain, It was very common in the 1960's through early 1990's. In the 70's and 80's, the large "capital gains" were actually economic losses due to inflation.

[Poxigah146]

That's true for any asset. Why shouldn't the first $250/$500k of stonk gains be excluded by that theory?

[Brett Bellmore]

It shouldn't be some arbitrary threshold, capital gains should simply be restricted to gains after accounting for inflation.

It's the obvious solution, but it would also obviously reduce government revenue, which is why they don't want to do it.

After all, what's even the point of generating inflation, if the government isn't allowed to profit from it?

[Joe_dallas]

I agree that capital gains should be taxed after adjusting for inflation. The problem is crafting a formula or a computation that adjusts for the inflation factor that is not excessively time consuming and will work with the IRS computer systems when reassessing the gains on exam. The lower capital gain rate is a reasonable compromise. The lower rate is not a giveaway to the rich since it is a reasonable (though imperfect) effort to adjust for inflation.

[Ska]

The Service publishes AFR tables monthly. They accept Treasury's quarterly foreign exchange rates. It would be a similar exercise, though it would have to account for decades of holding periods. It would be similar to a DCF table. Still, I don't think it would be something that couldn't be done reasonably cost effectively if they so wished.

It would probably push tax filing season back an additional month at a minimum. Or just cause more people to extend in years where people sold long term assets (which would probably result in more underpayment penalties and interest).

[Joe_dallas]

the afr tables are for transactions consumated during that month. Now imagine the table for the cumulative inflation from any month during the last 30 or so years and ending with each of the twelve months in the current year.

Inflation factor for asset purchased Jan 1980 with sale in Jan 2025, Feb 2025, March 2025, etc
Inflation factor for asset purchased in Feb 1980 with sale in n Jan 2025, Feb 2025, March 2025, etc.

A table going back only 10 years would have 1440 different inflation factors for each of the different purchase months and sell months.

[Brett Bellmore]

You say that as though it was actually a problem. That wasn't a big problem even before computers became ubiquitous.

And it wouldn't be a table of 1440 different inflation factors. (Which would be about pamphlet sized, anyway.) It would be a table of 120 different inflation factors, and a trivial bit of math.

[bernard11]

Brett is correct.

It's a trivial problem. Just use the monthly values of whatever price index you like, then divide sales month by purchase month.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett it would be 1440 different factors for period going back 10 years (10 years x 12 purchase months x 12 sell months).
That being said, if the change was to be made, the brokerage houses would be the ones required to keep the inflation adjusted cost numbers, then each taxpayer would have to cross check the math, then you would have the IRS screwups on the 1099 matching program, etc.

Its a shift worth considering, though the administrative costs would start to outweigh the benefits of more accurately computing taxable income. there is already way too much costs associated with compliance at both the taxpayer level and the government level.

[bernard11]

There's this thing called "division."

[Absaroka]

"In the 70's and 80's, the large "capital gains" were actually economic losses due to inflation."

I remember paying taxes on the 5.25% interest from a a savings account in 1980. Inflation that year was 13.5%. So savings lost 8.25% plus whatever your tax rate was.

[Joe_dallas]

Absaroka - good points . Much of the talking points on both sides of the aisle are ill informed talking points and contribute little to sound tax policy.

Almost all the tax credits for energy saving equipment, EV cars giveaways to the seller due to the artificial shift in demand curve.

Same with the Earned income credit and various poverty assistance programs (SNAP and WIC). The phase outs as a persons income rises for those programs create effective tax rates in the range of 80% to 120% ( effective tax rates being the increase in income tax, increase in FICA and the reduction in benefits due to phase outs).

[apedad]

HAHHHAAHHHHAAAAA!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

You seriously thought Trump cares one fucking iota about regular Joes?!?!?!?!?!?

[apedad]

Farmers feel betrayed as China dangles millions of tons of soybean purchases over the U.S. to get an edge in the escalating trade war

(US) Soybean farmers, caught in the middle of a trade war between the world’s two biggest superpowers, are starting to feel the consequences as China uses its crop purchasing power as political leverage.

https://fortune.com/2025/11/10/farmers-feel-betrayed-china-soybean-exports-trump-tariffs/

[Mr. Bumble]

Do your part and eat more tofu.

[ThePublius]

What the hell does that have to do with home mortgages?

[Frank Drackman]

Not everybody can afford to pay cash like I did.

[DDHarriman]

Same. I paid cold cash for my current home, but not my next.

[Poxigah146]

Absolutely not. It'll just drive prices up. It's a gift to the worthless boomers, like everything else the elite propose.

[ThePublius]

How is this proposal "a gift to the worthless boomers?" And, FWIW, I take offense at the 'worthless boomers' part.

[Poxigah146]

I'm sure you do. Your generation is lazy, spoiled, entitled, and except for the few that went to Vietnam, have never known any hardship.

You inherited the greatest society ever known to man and pissed it away. The first generation to not care about the future generations, as long as you have yours.

It's a gift to the worthless boomers because it's intended to make sure Joe and Betty Boomer who bought their shacks in Palo Alto in 1979 for $125,000 can sell it today for $4 million, and brag about what great investors they were.

[Frank Drackman]

$4 Million's not that much anymore, especially in Palo Alto.

[Poxigah146]

Yeah, because of the inflation caused by bad policies implemented by boomers like Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, and Jerome Powell.

[M L]

Hard to disagree with this, in general.

[Poxigah146]

Yes. Obviously there are good and bad in every group, and every generation, but the Boomers have a bad reputation for a reason.

[Frank Drackman]

Does July 4, 1962 make me a "Boomer"??
Well fuck you then, funny how we're not nearly as fat as whatever the current "20 Something" Generation is (what do you call them anyway? how about "Generation Fat Fucks"???)
And I'll be nice and not mention the Tattoos or chicks who's faces look like the Key Holders at a sleezy hotel. (You know, that thing they hang all the Key's on)
And like the Late/Great Hank Williams Jr. said,
"We make our own whiskey and our own smoke too
Ain't too many things these old boys can't do..."
OK, my attempt at Home Brew ended in a Hofman Degradation(Even Abbie wouldn't steal my Beer), and I can't grow a Beard, much less Pot.
Charlie Kirk's Killer could be the Poster Child, (OK, he's not fat yet) accomplished nothing, had to steal his grandfather's rifle, then drove away in a car (Righteous Dodge Charger BTW) that his Mommy and Daddy paid for, didn't even have the Co-Honies to kill himself.
Seriously, it's been 2 months, why hasn't he been Tried, Convicted, and Executed yet? Memories fade, Evidence gets lost, that whole "Justice Delayed" thang

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Does July 4, 1962 make me a "Boomer"??"
Yes, it's typically defined as having been born from 1946 to 1964. I'm in there, too, and proud to be so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously I'm in there, too: 1959. But "proud"? Being born on a specific date isn't exactly an accomplishment, to be proud of.

[ThePublius]

The so-called boomer generation accomplished a lot, myself included. That's what I'm proud of. Maybe you didn't contribute.

[Poxigah146]

And are now collectively trying as hard as you can to have as comfortable a life as you can in your golden years, no matter how bad you're making it for your children and grandchildren.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Well, obviously I'm in there, too: 1959."

I may not share politics with Brett, but we have 1959 in common. I think he once made a comment that established he's a doddering old decrepit ancient compared to me - by three or four months at least.

[Ska]

If you really want to laugh run an amortization table for a 50 year mortgage and check out 1) how much interest is paid over the life of the loan compared to the principal and 2) how little equity one would have even after 20 years of payments.

50 year notes. Wow.

If you have good credit and are stupid enough to take that deal, lol. If you have bad credit you won't get the loan. Banks aren't really fond of holding REO properties over paper.

[wvattorney13]

Yes. You might as well just pay rent to the bank.

How would this work? A 25 year old thinking of buying his first house would have to see that he will not own the house until he is 75 years old. If he wants to retire at 65 then that is 10 years too long.

I guess 25 is too old to buy a house!

[Bob from Ohio]

"I guess 25 is too old to buy a house!"

50 years is dumb, agreed, but almost no one goes the full 30 years now.

Assuming they kept the house, most people would re-finance multiple times during the original term of the purchase loan.

[wvattorney13]

However far you go, you will have much more equity in the house with a shorter term.

As far as refinancing, just skip the 50 year mortgage step and start out in something that pays down principal. Every bad financial decision starts with, "I can do this for a couple of years. I'll get that big promotion at work and start paying this down/refinance."

[M L]

Now account for the time value of money, and add in your assessment of the likelihood we see more bouts of inflation, rising rates and stock market bubbles.

50 yr mortgages are a bad idea. But, if they are made available, taking one out at a reasonable fixed rate may very well be a financial no-brainer, especially if you are deducting interest.

Just looking at an amortization table or the total amount of money paid over 50 years is not a competent financial analysis. But, it will get you a lot of hits on social media and carries a big wow factor with the financially illiterate. You can hardly blame those folks though, they are intuitively correct and their intuition would be right in a world of sound money.

[wvattorney13]

I don't understand any of this. Explain to me how in what circumstance this would be "a financial no-brainer"?

As far as deducting interest, I would rather keep the money in my pocket than get the tax deduction.

How is looking at an amortization table not a "competent financial analysis"? What else should someone be looking at?

[Martinned]

50 years is long, but then again so is the useful life of a house. Normal corporate finance is to align the financing for the asset with the useful life of the asset, so a long-running loan for an asset like a house is not inherently crazy.

[ThePublius]

It's not so much the life of the house as the life of the purchaser.

[Ska]

Not really. A tractor trailer? Same as an auto loan - typically 3-5 years financing, maybe 7 if you're really short on capital. Commercial real estate? 10 year interest-only balloon loan you expect to refi until you dispose of the asset; otherwise you borrow under normal mortgage conditions and keep the loan duration as short as feasibly possible. Construction loan? Duration of the construction, typically around 2 years for most projects. Equipment financing? 5 years, maybe 7.

The asset life almost always exceeds the financing period by a long margin, barring some kind of catastrophic loss or business termination. If you're going to borrow for the entire life of the asset you would just lease.

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the 90's, I was building my first home on a construction loan, and the mortgage rates spiked to the point where I couldn't have afforded to refinance to a mortgage. Which I had to do as soon as I finished the house.

I ended up taking my own sweet time finishing the house, and happily rates went down again. Otherwise I'd have had no choice but to sell the house to somebody else as soon as it was finished!

[Bob from Ohio]

"loan duration as short as feasibly possible"

Most commercial real estate loans are for 7 years.

Our Dutch friend is just talking out of his a** as usual.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a stupid idea. It does nothing whatsoever to address WHY housing is expensive, it just allows people to rent from the bank houses they can't afford to buy.

If you want to get to root causes, the real problem here is the reliance of local governments on property taxes, which causes them to game building codes and zoning so as to outlaw "starter homes" that don't yield much property taxes.

When I decided to build my home back in the 90's, I wanted to just build a micro-home, basically a garage with some living space I could live in while taking the time to build my real desire, a stone house. The local rules prohibited doing that! Nothing under about 1600 square feet was legal to build.

They had cut off the first couple of rungs of home ownership, in order to maximize property tax revenues!

Unfortunately, this is not a problem that's susceptible to a federal solution.

[ducksalad]

Unfortunately, this is not a problem that's susceptible to a federal solution.

I understand you don't want to be a fair-weather federalist. But at some point, when no one else is upholding it, it's effectively foul-weather federalism: it only counts when it cuts against you.

The feds own a good deal of property in some states, and could buy more.

- Federal property can be exempted from local zoning if Congress decides to do that, it's already exempt from taxation.
- Start selling 1000-year unrestricted leases for subdivisions and individual homes on vacant federal land.
- Income tax seizures and foreclosures also get resold as 1000-year unrestricted leases.
- Then negotiate with local governments when they realize they're losing residents to non-taxable, non-zonable options.

[Brett Bellmore]

But I'm NOT a fair weather federalist, and,

1. Constitutionally, federal property is only so exempt if purchased with the consent of the state legislature.
2. I really, really do not want the federal government owning even MORE property.

[ducksalad]

It wasn't really a serious proposal.

But a 1000 year no-eviction transferable lease is pretty close to converting government property into private property. Apparently in England a lot of private homes are actually on 100-year leases, people buy and sell the leases without the "real" owner being much involved.

[DDHarriman]

Same.

This is more rube goldberg policy making to avoid solving the root cause which is bad government policy to begin with.

Just like ACA subsidies.

[Longtobefree]

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-unveils-new-eternal-mortgage

[jb]

FWIW, the eternal mortgage already exists. It's called an interest only loan.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a dystopian science fiction novel with 99 year mortgages. You couldn't get the mortgage unless you had kids to assume it. This was in the roughly 1980s-1990s era of SF when future dystopias were dominated by corporations.

[M L]

I agree with you. But, why is the government involved? And FDR supposedly created the 30 year mortgage, too? What's the deal with that?

Why shouldn't a lender and a borrower have a 50 year loan, if they want to? Probably not very different than what millions of people do in practice, with ARMs, periodic refinancing, etc.

Probably just need to end the fed, right?

[Jmaie]

It would do little to make housing more affordable, at today’s interest rates the savings would amount to 8 or 9%…

[Commenter_XY]

Concur. No way to a 50-year mortgage.

I do recall 40-year mortgages in the early 90's. They were a bad idea, then. Time hasn't improved it and a 50-year term doesn't make it better, either.

[Poxigah146]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/sports/miss-state-university-student-arrested-for-allegedly-hurling-antisemitic-comment-at-dave-portnoy/

Does the First Amendment not apply anymore if someone is offended?

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Dave, it's Starkville.
and the charge was for "Disturbing the Peace", I believe based on the "Fighting Words" Exception, like how I can't walk up to Mike Tyson and call him an N-word and expect to be living 10 seconds after.

[Poxigah146]

The fighting words exception does not apply here. There was no imminent breach of the peace.

[Frank Drackman]

Everyone has a clever legal argument until they get punched in the mouth.

[Bored Lawyer]

Acc. to the article, Portnoy was filming a pizza review. (Whatever that is.) So arguably he was disturbing someone by making loud noise during a shoot. That's not based on content.
At least that's the argument, although I am doubtful if he had shouted something else he would have been arrested.

[Ska]

Christ, that's who this is about? They will show up on Instagram - he's the founder of Barstool Sports. He will make one minute clips eating pizza and giving stupid reviews. Still hard to imagine that shitting on the guy is a worthwhile endeavor.

[Bored Lawyer]

Someone else yelled at Portnoy "F--- the Jews." It's the other guy who was arrested.

[Frank Drackman]

He's been doing the review for years, it's almost like a Johnny Carson routine, they're called "One Bite Pizza Reviews" but he never takes just one Bite (even though he says "One Bite, everyone knows the rules") he comments on the Slice like he's judging an Olympic Gymnast (same 10 point scale) commenting on the "Flop" the "Undercarriage" and he always just orders a plain Cheese Pizza.
Common comment is that a Pizza is "just a good Football Pizza" Just missed him at Vinny's in Fithy-Delphia a few years back (8.0, Sauce tasted canned)

Frank

[wvattorney13]

"At least that's the argument, although I am doubtful if he had shouted something else he would have been arrested."

I think that would be the test. Is this an usually quiet city street where everyone talks at a good conversational tone? Do we have a crack squad of officers swooping in to arrest anyone who raises their voice?

If not, as we suspect, then the city may have a lawsuit on its hands.

[Poxigah146]

My guess is they'll drop the charges and then claim the case is moot, and that qualified immunity covers the arrest.

This shit keeps happening, and the cops have no incentive to stop doing it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm wary when news accounts post booking photos of people who are merely charged with crimes. They are innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, their photos are now widely distributed to the public at large. It is unclear how newsworthy such photos are.

The person was charged with disturbance of the peace. Merely saying something that offends isn't enough to successfully charge that. "Fighting words" (the f-word is cited) might factor in.

An article linked to the article notes:

“Every person has the right to feel safe and respected in our community,” a statement from Brandon Lovelady, the public information officer for Starkville PD, read. “Offensive words alone are protected, but when behavior disrupts a public event or risks violence, the Starkville Police Department will take steps to help maintain safety and security.”

The article also noted "a man on the sidewalk yelled an antisemitic statement and threw coins at Portnoy."

If someone walks up to a person, curses at them, and throws money at them, it might warrant criminal sanction.

[David Nieporent]

If someone walks up to a person, curses at them, and throws money at them, it might warrant criminal sanction.

Disturbing the peace is a minor charge, and could be legit or maybe not depending on details I don't have. (We might be able to have them, but I'm not going to go hunt down a video to find them out.) But:

Patrick McClintock, 20, was arrested Monday after a viral video allegedly captured him yelling, “F–k the Jews” toward Portnoy, [...]

McClintock was a junior and a mechanical engineering major at Mississippi State University, the university’s campus paper reported.

He voluntarily withdrew from MSU as a student on Monday afternoon, a university spokesperson confirmed to The Post.

Can you imagine having to go home to your parents and explain that you just threw away 2½ years of tuition etc. because you were a dumbass?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Being a dumbass is typical college behavior.

Some take it a bit too far.

[loki13]

I'm just going to post a brief roundup on what we know (from various sources) about the murders Trump and Hegseth have ordered in the Caribbean, and why it matters.

1. As always, this administration lies. Do you remember the press releases talking about Fentanyl, and how each boat carried enough drugs to kill millions of Americans, and that they were headed to America, and that they had identified each "narco-trafficker" on each boat first and blah blah blah?

All lies. The boats never had Fentanyl (it was cocaine, which the Administration later said was either a "precursor drug" (WTF!!) or "affiliated with" (ummmm...) Fentanyl). Given that there were 80k total OD doses from all drugs of all kinds in the US in 2024, it is difficult to understand how blowing up each boat saved millions of lives (it's Trump math, bigly, decreasing deaths by 5300%). And the vast majority of those deaths are from opioids and drugs (incl. cocaine) laced with Fentanyl. They hadn't identified the individuals on the boats, but said that as long as they believed they were three steps from a known group, they were fair game (we all are).

Finally, none of the Venezuela boats was headed to, or could have gone to, the US.

2. Also, in at least two of the cases that we know of, there is a significant dispute that the Administration has not answered that they blew up boats that weren't trafficking. So there's that. Accidents do happen when you're not being careful. I guess. Sucked to be them?

3. Also, there is no legal justification. I mean, people here like to argue with their feels, but there isn't ... any actual legal ability to just murder people, especially when the boats aren't even going to the US.

Now I know the usual suspects here don't care about the law.... we've seen that! But other countries do. Which is why our allies (such as the UK) are no longer sharing intelligence in the Caribbean with us. No big loss you say? Well, thanks to Colonialism (the gift that keeps on giving?) countries like the UK and France and the Netherlands ... have a major intelligence presence there, and it is, in fact, a big loss. Apparently, our allies don't want to be complicit in non-legal murder, or something.

Pussies, amirite?

4. Finally, there is the whole, "Why are we doing this?" argument. I mean, other than the "Looks cool, it cruel, and #nofatties" approach of this administration. But here's the thing- if we blew up every single boat coming out of Venezuela it wouldn't do anything for our drug problem in the US. Certainly not for the opioids BECAUSE THEY DON'T COME FROM THERE. But not even cocaine. Almost all of the drugs enter through Mexico. Not to mention we have a small domestic industry (y'all know that Fentanyl is manufactured, right) that can ramp up. Hey- domestic jobs!

It's murder porn that doesn't address the problem. I mean, it does signal that the US might want regime change (and sweet, sweet oil) from Venezuela, but I seriously doubt that we need to make our military service members complicit in Hegseth and Trump's murder spree to do that.

Anyway, happy Veteran's Day. I hope that none of you have family that are service members that are subject to the capricious whims of this administration- because if you do, you know that it's a struggle. Are they going to be murdering people, or "fighting the enemy within?" Who knows?

[Martinned]

Wasn't a possible answer to "why are we doing this?" "because this might allow the Regime to declare all Venezuelans enemy aliens and collectively kick them out of the country without due process"?

[Bob from Ohio]

Good idea!

[grb]

loki13 : "As always, this administration lies."

And just as a reminder : The same White House now saying, "trust us; we have intelligence about these boats" is the same bunch that said, "trust us. The hundreds we disappeared into a Central American gulag were all Tren de Aragua gang members. But they were lying then, weren't they? There was only evidence of gang membership with a tiny percent. Aside from the many obvious mistakes (such as the gay hair stylist), most were people rounded-up and thrown in a hellhole prison on little or no evidence at all. Trump just needed live bodies with brown skin for a stunt to entertain his base.

It's the same here. Some think this a prelude to military action against Venezuela, but get real. Taco Trump isn't going to do that. This is just more cartoon theatrics from our cartoon president. He blows-up people with brown skin in Caribbean. His supporters hoot and crackle, slapping their knees with pleasure. Do you think they care it's just an empty stunt?

Not a bit.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Such actions are illegitimate and warrant national (including impeachment) and international sanctions.

If some random country did things like this, many would be quite disdainful and disgusted by it. Many would welcome a strong response. OTOH, the ability to apply different rules to those you support is a standard time-old concept.

[Bob from Ohio]

" international sanctions"

Oh noes, better call our international lawyer!

[John F. Carr]

Compare the Houthis attacking commercial shipping. The Houthis are more indiscriminate, claiming to be targeting Israel but more likely targeting anybody who doesn't pay protection money. I think Trump genuinely wants to blow up drug smugglers and the fishermen were killed due to carelessness.

[Sarcastr0]

There's something going on here with people feeling virtuous defending Harsh Measures.

There was a similar dynamic back when the Bush admin was torturing people.

The needless cruelty is twisted around such that the sacrifice of morals and humanity is evidence of dedication to the cause. Which must be super important, given the Harsh Measures we need.

[M L]

tl;dr, but, I am sure we can find similar lengthy screeds by all these same commenters posted during the Obama admin about all his drone killings, right?

Right?

[Armchair]

No, because those were "justified" because...reasons. Sure, the US Citizens had nothing to do with 9/11, but...hey.

[Nelson]

Whatabout! Whatabout!

[Armchair]

Shame you weren't around when Obama was ordering the assassination of US Citizens.

[Sarcastr0]

1. There was an authorization to use military force there. Maybe still wrong, but a different legal area.

2. Plenty of people here were not happy with that. This isn't even hypothetical hypocricy, it's just fake hypocricy.

[Armchair]

1. There was "authorization" to assassinate US Civilians who had literally nothing to do with 9/11? Please, go into it further.

2. And keep defending what you're "not happy with".

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man, Barry Osama was clean, and articulate, I mean that's a Storybook!!!! (man)

[Nelson]

Whatabout! Whatabout!

[ThePublius]

"what we know (from various sources)"

Yea, 'sources.' Why don't you produce the receipts?

As always, this administration loki13 lies.
FIFY

[Sarcastr0]

What specifically do you dispute? I can't speak to all of it, but most of it has been well and broadly reported.

Your lack of specificity does not support your accusation of lying. One might even call such burden shifting uncivil, if one cared about such things.

Or knew what civility actually was.

[Commenter_XY]

You need to contact your FL Congress-critters (1 Rep, 2 Senators) and tell them to exercise some oversight, Loki13. The Congress must speak to this; their studied navel-gazing only goes as far as the first American military casualty.

[Mr. Bumble]

McRibs are back.
https://mcriblocator.com/find.html

[Frank Drackman]

I know I'm a freak, but I like the basic Mickey D's Hamburger (OK, I get 4), not the Cheeseburger, the Hamburger, so few people order them you can count on getting one fairly fresh.

[Ska]

But that tangy plastic orange taste of the cheeseburger is what makes it good. Actually it's the grade C pickle slices and the onion bits in the ketchup that makes it good, but that blanket of cheese product adds to the flavor.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was a kid, those pickle slices for half the country were all made a few miles from my home, in the Imlay City Vlasic's plant. Whole place smelled of pickles, a couple years running I worked there as a summer job. One year on the packing line hammering in that last pickle, another as a warehouse janitor.

Turned me off relish for years; The bin for the reject pickles that ended up as relish was right next to the bin for sweeping the floor, and let's just say mistakes sometimes happened.

The smell improved dramatically when they switched to just repackaging pickle slices imported from China, but the local jobs dried up, too.

[Poxigah146]

Vlasic is one of those brands that I want to like, because they're around 20% of the cost of "real pickles," but they just don't cut it.

[ThePublius]

Yikes, you can eat four McDonalds hamburgers? Wow. I was thrilled to be able to eat four White Castle burgers.

[Frank Drackman]

It's only 1,000 Calories, and I'll usually eat 3 and save 1 for later, occasionally I'll put 2 patties on one making a "Double Hamburger" that you can't get at the store.

[Poxigah146]

Double hamburger is available at the one nearest me. I'm looking at it on the app right now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah fond memories of when the plain hamburger was $.15 and fries were$,12 and you could get full for less than a dollar.

[Glaucomatose]

Get 10 at a time, throw 'em in your fridge, microwave 'em when you feel like it. Chrissy Teigen swears by it, and apparently it actually works.

[Estragon]

“The Trump administration ought to put an end to the special treatment pedophile-enabler Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly receiving in prison — and throw cold water on her hopes for a presidential commutation […] Sickos who prey on kids shouldn’t get kid-glove treatment, nor sprung from prison early. Give Ghislaine Maxwell the prison experience she’s earned — or face justified public outrage.”

One wonders what the Post editorial board views as the “[earned] prison experience” in this context.

[grb]

According to the whistleblower, Maxwell has custom-prepared meals delivered directly to her cell, the warden makes special accommodations for her to meet with visitors, she alone is permitted special time in the prison exercise yard, and Maxwell is even allowed playtime with a service puppy in training.

Any inmate or staff who discusses or questions this pampering of a convicted sexual abuser faces retaliation from the prison warden. This has reached such an absurd level that one top officials at the prison complained he's “sick of having to be Maxwell’s bitch".

So Ghislaine Maxwell meets with Trump's personal attorney (who also has a side-job as a DOJ official), and then is immediately transferred to the cushiest of prisons where she is given doting royal treatment. We need these accusations investigated and refuted or confirmed.

Of course even if they are proved, what would it change for Trump's supporters in this forum or elsewhere? They already know he's a lifelong criminal. They already know he's selling government favor for personal profit. They already know he's without standards, ethics, or morality. They just don't care.

[Estragon]

“We need these accusations investigated and refuted or confirmed.”

That would be interesting— but as you say, wouldn’t move the needle around here.

As for “confirmed” doesn’t the transfer to Bryant against BOP regs suffice? Someone at DOJ is working to keep Ms Maxwell happy. But it will only go so far. However nice they make Bryant for her— it ain’t the French Riviera. She is looking at being in this camp (I hesitate to call it “prison”) until her 80s— a state of affairs that I suspect she will not be willing to tolerate indefinitely.

[M L]

Bevy of up and coming leftists celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk, candidates to serve as their next political shooter.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/11/antifa-blocks-exits-at-berkeley-tpusa-event-f-you-fascists/

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Some protesters were *reportedly* seen celebrating the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who was gunned down in September while speaking at Utah Valley University." [emphasis added]

Reportedly? This is a fairly important point, could we get a more thorough summary of the evidence?

If Breitbart can only say "reportedly," they don't seem to think they have definite proof, just an understandable suspicion given the situation and the fact that other people have praised Kirk's killing before.

Still, no proof.

[M L]

One of the embedded videos in the article shows an individual pointing to the spot on the neck where Charlie was shot, in a menacing way while flicking off the TPUSA folks.

This is not the first time such a gesture has been used in reference to the murder of Charlie. Check out this fine individual (who it turns out is a Chicago elementary schoolteacher): https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1979905911930994727

I didn't watch all the videos and not sure what else went on at the Berkeley event - may be just "reportedly" as you said.

I would also note, anyone who spent a little bit of time on social media likely noticed a huge amount of online reactions mocking, supporting, and/or celebrating Charlie's murder, on a scale that would equate to millions of radicals here in America, unless it was a bot campaign or something.

[jb]

"on a scale that would equate to millions of radicals here in America, unless it was a bot campaign or something"

Millions??? You're going to need to show your work on this one.

[M L]

There appeared to be hundreds of thousands willing to express some some sort of mockery of or support or justification for Charlie's murder. And for every one actually publicly engaging in that way, there's always going to be a lot more not engaging.

And why should this be surprising, if there are a lot of people that view mainstream conservative Christians like Charlie as "Nazis"? Aren't the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler considered heroes?

Of course, part of this online stuff is just people being very online and edgy on the internet. I understand that. And I typically caution against making generalizations from what you read on twitter or whatever. But mass numbers of reactions is also different than extrapolating from isolated twitter comments.

[David Nieporent]

Is "hundreds of thousands" Esperanto for "hundreds"? Do you get to your figure by finding teachers wearing halloween costumes utterly unrelated to Kirk and lying that they're wearing them to mock Kirk?

[jb]

Ah, I see. You started with one made up number, multiplied by ten, and got an even bigger made up number.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I am aware that there *are* people who cheered the murder, I was simply wondering if any of these Berkeley people proved themselves to be in that group.

[M L]

Looks like at least 1 did something like that, in terms of the video evidence.

Not sure what the backstory is on the guy with the Charlie Kirk freedom t shirt, blood gushing from his face, and being arrested.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I finished a short book on Mary Magdalene. I didn't like it too much, so won't name it. It had some interesting tidbits.

Magdalene is an interesting character. The gospels provide multiple stories of Jesus engaging with women. Women often have special insight, including people like (another) Mary and Martha. This has modern-day importance, especially given the role Christianity has in our society.

Paul later cites multiple women who played an important role in the early church. The most sexist comments in Pauline letters are from faux Pauline epistles, such as Timothy and Titus.

The gospels agree that Mary Magdalene (and perhaps certain other women) were the first people to learn about or experience the risen Jesus. For instance, John notes Peter and a "beloved disciple" entered the tomb, but still does not fully understand. And then Mary sees Jesus, who she thinks at first is the gardener.

Mary then disappears from the biblical text. We have some non-canonical accounts, but even they don't tell us what happened to her. The best we have are stories much later, including a fictional account that she went to France.

There is some wide acceptance that Mary was in some fashion a historical figure. It is one of history's mysteries of what happened to her after she had some sort of visionary experience. We need not believe in the resurrection to recognize the importance of the first believers who led to the Christian movement.

The lack of information is common in historical accounts. We know about someone because of a specific event, but not much more.

Historians spend a lot of time with limited information, proposing different possibilities.

[Frank Drackman]

That part where they don't recognize Hey-Zeus still confuses me, I'm guessing it's like how if I went to Arlington, and JFK walked up, I might not realize it's JFK, since he's been keeping himself pretty scarce since 1963, but then there's the whole "Don't Touch Me" bit, OTOH, if you're just making the whole thing up, strange they'd keep those parts in there.
Remember this Sci-Fi book from the 70's "Behold the Man", Dude invents a Time Machine, goes back to 30's AD, finds out the whole Hey-Zeus thing was made up, (OK, there WAS a Hey-Zeuss, the retarded son of Mary and "some Dude") and the whole resurrection was faked.
Oh yeah, "SPOILER ALERT"
c'mon (man) it came out 50 years ago, next you'll be angry when I tell you the "Planet of the Apes" is Earth

Frank

[NvEric]

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

[apedad]

"The lack of information is common in historical accounts."

You're saying The Bible is a historical document?

[John F. Carr]

I have seen it referenced in a serious historical book. I think the book was The Middle East Under Rome by Maurice Sartre, English version by Harvard University Press.

[Bunny495]

"You're saying The Bible is a historical document?"

There was a best seller written in 1955 titled "The Bible As History" that was very well received. In general scholars have found reasons to dispute some of it's conclusions it is still considered a good read. In 2001 a book titled "The Bible Unearthed" undertook the task of assessing just how well the Bible conforms to the modern view of history. The Bible Unearthed is part of a movement called the "Minimalist" or "Low Chronology" school of thought. These works are known for their critical, evidence-based approach to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and its origins. While not everything in the Bible is viewed as accurate by todays' scholars there is a lot of history in it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm not sure how you are using the term "historical document."

Religious texts are historical documents of a sort.

The Bible does have some historical content. Secular historians try to find the historical facts and separate it from the rest.

"The rest" is also historical content to the degree that it helps us determine what people believed.

[Ridgeway]

Not a biblical scholar here, but I had always thought that the "beloved disciple" referred to in John's gospel was .... John. Just a bit of not-too-subtle self-promotion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That is a fairly common understanding.

The names of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not in the originals. They were attributed later.

[Nelson]

Remember that the Bible was largely written years after the events they describe. Most of the New Testament, for example, was written roughly 70 years, give or take a decade or two, after the events. That would be like someone writing a first-person account of the Korean War today . The likelihood of it being an accurate account is very low.

The Bible is a story, told by those who had a vested interest in hitting the highlights and suffering from the inaccuracies that will inevitably occur after the better part of a century. It can tell us a great deal about how things were perceived by the authors in hindsight, which is far superior most documentation of the time, but shouldn’t be treated as gospel (pun intended).

[Kazinski]

Its clear that misinformation is becoming more and more of a problem:

"The BBC has been forced to correct two stories a week about the Gaza conflict since the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, The Telegraph can reveal.

BBC Arabic has had to make 215 corrections and clarifications over the past two years on stories that were found to be biased, inaccurate or misleading.

The figures follow a week of revelations by The Telegraph of one-sided reporting at the BBC, disclosed in an 8,000-word dossier compiled by a whistleblower, which also accused BBC Arabic of choosing to “minimise Israeli suffering” in the war in Gaza to “paint Israel as the aggressor”.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bbc-forced-correct-two-gaza-140000422.html

[Sarcastr0]

Your concern about misinformation is as one-sided as your concern about free speech.

I can't tell about the BBC Arabic story yet, but the edited Trump video was in my opinion a pretty indefensible screw up by the BBC. It didn't live up to it's journalistic standards.

Meanwhile, you regularly post press releases from Congresspeople promising investigations. You breathlessly post those for truth despite their explicit lack of standards.

It's kind of impressive how you don't even notice that your concerns about misinformation holding up a standard you regularly and enthusiastically ignore.

[Kazinski]

215 corrections and clarifications on one subject over 2 year period.

But I shouldn't take notice of that, or take notice of a congressional committee doing oversight when it results is the scrapping of a sweetheart non-prosecution deal that was scrapped because of the oversight and resulted in multiple felonies for the President's son.

90% of your posts are criticizing me or someone else for posting things you don't want people to notice, you should know by now that just encourages me.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems bad, but I'm waiting on another source on it, hopefully one with some context.

You know, to prevent being fooled by misinformation.

Never mind, you don't know.

[Commenter_XY]

It is really sad = Its clear that misinformation is becoming more and more of a problem

AI will simply exacerbate the problem.

[zztop8970]

A legal question , as this is supposedly a legal blog:
Could Trump sue the BBC in the US, given claims that the Panorama documentary was not broadcast in the US?

[Bob from Ohio]

Insider Paper@TheInsiderPaper
BREAKING: 758-metre-long Hongqi bridge collapses in southwest China, months after opening

https://x.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/198824541282256078

[grb]

What a mess! At least there were no injuries, as apparently the authorities recognized there were problems beforehand. Per the early accounts, people are suggesting instability on the mountainside where the bridge terminated was a factor (if not THE factor). Of course that should have been verified & quantified at the earliest stage of design. There was another high-profile failure just back in August, when a railway bridge under construction in Qinghai province collapsed during a cable-tensioning operation, killing at least 12 workers and leaving four others missing.

If this was in the U.S., I'd probably know the structural engineer brought in for a forensic analysis. I once worked on a building project where the structural engineer was a bit of a card, wearing loud garish shirts and making smart-aleck comments from the back of the rooms in meetings. But I learned he's a big deal in the profession and something of a "structural ambulance chaser", called in by people around the country to provide expert advice after disasters. One example? The Pentagon right after 911.

At one point I needed an answer and he was up in NYC for a construction crane collapse. I told the guy in his office we were going to overturn some tables to demand a moment of his time. I've seen his name associated with three major mishaps in the years since.

[Mr. Bumble]

China sux!
Which bridge was it that they got the contract for in SF where numerous bolts were found to be defective among other work.

[Bunny495]

There is a long history of poor QA in the stuff China builds. Dams in South America and Africa are falling apart. Coca Codo Sinclair Hydroelectric Plant in Ecuador has over 17,000 cracks (that is a seventeen followed by three zeros). Not to mention problems with other dams built in China itself. There has long been speculation that the Three Gorges Dam will fail with tragic results downstream.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If it weren't so serious and so dangerous to human life, I'd venture the remark that it's a dam shame.

[Commenter_XY]

Nice, a bridge a half mile long. Glad no one died. Sounds like an expensive infrastructure failure for China.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Holiday or not, we have another bit of SCOTUS news.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111125zr_3204.pdf

[Kazinski]

They need do more than just moot the case.

Moot with a possibility of repetition should apply to judges as well as the executive.

Seems there is already some tension on the issue:

"The application for stay presented to Justice Jackson is
referred to the Court. The administrative stay entered on
November 7, 2025, is hereby extended until 11:59 p.m. (EST) on
November 13, 2025.

Justice Jackson would deny the request for extension of the
administrative stay and would deny the application."

Seems like she was out voted on extending the stay.

[grb]

"Everything was set for the Navy officer to take over a new role that would have capped an already distinguished career— and made her the first woman in a Naval Special Warfare command overseeing Navy SEALs. Ranked the top officer for promotion in her cohort, she received a Purple Heart after being injured in an IED attack during a combat tour in Iraq. She then became the first woman to serve with SEAL Team Six in the role of troop commander, one of several senior positions within the squadrons that make up the elite naval unit.

A formal ceremony marking her new position was planned for July. Invitations went out two months in advance. But just two weeks before the ceremony, her command was abruptly canceled with little explanation, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. The decision didn’t come through formal channels but by a series of phone calls from the Pentagon, one of the sources said. The circumstances were unusual and seemed designed to omit a paper trail, according to multiple sources. Under the Navy’s “up or out” policy, with no command slot to take, the officer’s more than two-decade military career was effectively over."

No doubt Pete Hegseth's masculinity was feeling particularly threatened that day, so he had to destroy this woman's proud and exceptional career. Speaking metaphorically, I have no doubt she's got a bigger pair than the former TV talking-head lightweight ever had or will. Her name wasn't given in the original (paywalled) CNN article but someone on a military Reddit site claims this is the woman in question:

"After graduating from Penn State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism in 2002, Captain Sarah Turse commissioned into the United States Navy as a Diving and Salvage Officer. Her first assignment was to the USS Grapple (ARS-53), where she also served as Operations Officer aboard the salvage ship. She was assigned to the Grapple from 2002 to 2005, until she successfully screened to become an Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer.

She was assigned to EOD Mobile Unit 3 in June 2006, and subsequently served as an EOD platoon commander and Officer-in-Charge of a Mk6 Anti-Swimmer Dolphin System. She remained at EODMU3 before she attended the Naval Postgraduate School from June 2008 to December 2009. She was re-assigned to Expeditionary Exploitation Unit ONE in 2009 until 2012, then again to Naval Special Warfare Command HQ as an Integration Officer in May 2015. In May 2017, Turse attended and successfully completed an advanced screening course to join the Navy's East Coast-based Special Missions Unit.

She would spend 5 years there as an EOD troop commander, deploying to conflict zones all over the world multiple times, and leading some of the most talented and proficient EOD technicians in the world. One of these deployments saw her sent to Afghanistan in 2019 (pictured), in support of a vehicle interdiction task force that was led by an NSWDG squadron commander out of Camp Dwyer in Helmand Province. Following her assignment to NSWDG, she served as Executive Assistant to the Commander of NSWC. Today, she is currently serving as Deputy Commodore of Naval Special Warfare Group ELEVEN."

[grb]

Not the original article, but a non-paywalled account that quotes it: https://archive.is/ofLdJ

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Herr Starmtrooper's gov't falling apart?

[grb]

The WaPo has a long article on a convention of the "Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaxx group. It was predictably filled with weirdos, wack-jobs, and loons, with much of the conference dedicated to ending the school vaccine requirements for mumps, measles, rubella, polio, chickenpox, tetanus, HPV, etc.

Peter Hildebrand - whose unvaccinated 8yr old daughter Daisy died this year of measles - said he would do everything in his power to "protect his children from vaccines" and "try his best to never go to a hospital again". Little Daisy was unavailable for comment.

The Dynamic Duo of pandering freaks, Ron DeSantis and Florida's Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, put in an appearance. The latter said this: "I saw reporters from The Washington Post and Atlantic that represent these forces that - I have nothing against them , to be clear - they represent forces who are working towards the enslavement of humanity". Jeffery Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic was asked to reply and issued this statement: "In fact, The Atlantic is not working towards the enslavement of humanity, but I appreciate his concern"

Why are right-wingers so f**cking stupid?!?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you see the spike in ivermectin prescriptions in August 2021 during the Delta death surge as DeSantis/Lapado started discouraging vaccines and encouraging ivermectin?? So let’s say average ivermectin scripts is 1000 per month…it went to 100,000 that month and it did nothing! And Trump to his credit was promoting the booster to boos at his rallies…and all of the GOPe wanted DeSantis to be president at that time!! The GOP is still the party of Cheney that sends other people’s children to war while their daughter gets to crap out the record number of babies for a female State Department official and split time in Arlington, VA and Jackson, WY.