Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-873898

Despite uproar, IDF cantor to perform at Amsterdam Hanukkah concert...

Martinned and his fellow travelers hardest hit.

[Frank Drackman]

Check out the Amsterdam photos, you'd think it was Kabul or Terror-Anne

[Mr. Bumble]

Those damn soccer hooligans...

[AmosArch]

It really is the hardest thing to figure out where progs stand on Jews. One week they're examining a Trump campaign flyer through an electron microscope and running his speeches through a da Vinci Code supercomputer cluster combing every nook and cranny for possible antiSemitic dogwhistles then the next they're physically assaulting jews and spraypainting antiJew slurs on buildings or alternately standing by and watching then posting a 10 page defense in support.

[Malika la Maize]

What an interesting time for Amos to trot this out given the Fuentes mess and this:

If you thought sending horrific, racist texts was enough to get you shunned from political service, think again! President Donald Trump wants Paul Ingrassia to take his “Nazi streak” to the General Services Administration.

In a Thursday email to his colleagues obtained by Politico, Ingrassia announced that the president had personally offered him a position as general counsel at the GSA. The conservative activist had previously been serving as White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security.

https://newrepublic.com/post/203204/donald-trump-failed-nominee-nazi-streak-paul-ingrassia-job

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he's right. While it's certainly possible to find antisemites on the right, and I'm rather disturbed that they're not getting the Buckley treatment these days, the idea that the left is innocent of antisemitism is absurd.

It's just that on the left your antisemites pretend to be anti-Zionists, and you pretend to believe them.

[Malika la Maize]

You really don’t get the whole Mote and Beams thing, do you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I get the whole "Once we accuse you of something, you're not allowed to point out we're guilty, too!" thing. The left have been doing that for ages.

I feel no need to humor it, though. The right being guilty of something doesn't make the left innocent.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s not how motes and beams work, it’s about focusing on motes when there’s a beam in your eye. The Fuentes, Ingrassia, etc., > some punk college protestor.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're certainly focusing a lot on motes on the right - are you a rightist?

I think anyone who's against antisemitism should prove he's opposed - starting by identifying antisemitic people and organizations.

Focusing more on "their antisemites are worse than ours" shows your commitment to fighting antisemitism takes a back seat to ideology.

[Malika la Maize]

Couldn’t follow the thread?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You denounce antisemitism on the right, this Brett guy denounces antisemitism the right *and* the left, but you take issue with his denunciation of left-wing antisemitism because he should be focusing on his own "side" (motes and beams).

By that logic, you should only be focusing on your own "side," not denouncing right-wing antisemitism.

Of course, if every Internet commenter took the advice which you give (but don't take), nobody would be criticizing the other side at all.

[Michael P]

Did the right elect Zoltan Robzombie as mayor? Are Republicans on a course to nominate Totenkopf Guy to run for the Senate?

You're nutpicking, and ignoring that the left has blatant antisemites in much more prominent positions than the right does.

[Malika la Maize]

Margrave, I’d think one should focus on where it’s most pronounced and timely.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The only way to claim that there isn't significant antisemitism on the left is to take seriously all those protestations of "nobody here but us anti-Zionists!'

[Michael P]

The political right isn't who attacks meetings of Jewish student groups, blockades campuses, or vandalizes sidewalks with spray-painted messages like "'never again' means a free Palestine".

There is more antisemitism on the right than I thought (I wish there was none), but it is far more malignant and widespread on the left.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why whitewash one's political allies? In fact, why consider *any* group of anti-Semites as one's political allies?

[Randal]

The right's campaign against leftist antisemitism is plainly designed to discredit all criticism of Israel. I've never seen anyone actually engage the criticisms of Israel. It's always just "nope, don't have to acknowledge any of that, you're just a secret antisemite."

The ADL makes this point explicitly. According to it, Israel must be given a pass to do any atrocities it pleases because Jewish identity is so bound up with Israel that condemning Israel is inherently antisemitic. Convenient!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is the ADL on the right?

There are certainly a lot of "important if true" allegations against Israel and its conduct in the current war. Maybe some of the atrocity stories are true, but just because an atrocity story gets broadcast over the BBC or shouted over a bullhorn by some unshorn, sidewalk-blocking "protester," doesn't mean I'm going to believe it.

There are plenty of actual instances of crimes committed by Jews, just as there are plenty of actual instances of crimes committed by Whites, Blacks, etc. But if some guy goes around singling out a group for the crimes of some of its members, I know I'm dealing with racism.

If masked demonstrators block Black people and demand they disavow O. J. Simpson or Bill Cosby if they want to be allowed access to public property, I can be pretty sure what's going on. Or if they stop White people and demand a denunciation of Donald Trump, etc.

[Randal]

Is the ADL on the right?

Sadly, these days, yes.

There are plenty of actual instances of crimes committed by Jews...

See, this is what I'm talking about. Who said anything about Jews? We were talking about crimes committed by the state of Israel. That has absolutely nothing to do with crimes committed by Jews.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As to the perpetrators of the important-if-true Israeli atrocities - are these perpetrators Jews or not? If they are, and if the atrocities are real, then those are crimes committed by Jews.

[Randal]

You mean like, Netanyahu? I suppose his crimes of corruption are "crimes committed by a Jew," but that's not what people are criticizing. His criminal exercise of the power of the state of Israel are crimes committed by the state of Israel, not "crimes committed by a Jew" in any meaningful sense.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I know that, and you know that, but does every vocal "anti-Zionist" know that?

Do these putative "we're just anti-Zionist" types denounce the crimes and atrocities of Hamas as well as the (real or alleged) crimes of Netanyahu? I don't just mean "to-be-sure-some-people-did-something" disclaimers, but genuine indignant denunciations against Hamas' murders.

If the situation were flipped, and some "MAGA" types kept going on about the crimes of fanatical Muslims without looking at other bad world actors, you'd call them Islamophobes, wouldn't you?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Update: Netanyahu is Jewish, to indeed, any *proven* crimes he's committed are crimes committed by a Jew.

The question, in order to test for antisemitism, is to see what attitudes Netanyahu's accusers have toward crimes committed by Gentiles.

[Randal]

You're just slipping back into "all criticism of Israel is secretly antisemitic." Some certainly is, but not all, or even most, or even much.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No.

Again - "The question, in order to test for antisemitism, is to see what attitudes Netanyahu's accusers have toward crimes committed by Gentiles."

[Randal]

No. Rather than spend all your efforts attempting to ignore criticisms of Israel by trying to find ways to accuse the critics of antisemitism, consider that at least some of them aren't antisemitic, and therefore the critiques are legitimate and deserving of an answer. The fact that the critiques go perpetually unanswered as charges of antisemitism get thrown around (as you're doing here) leads us non-antisemitic critics to believe that there is no answer. The critiques are valid. Israel is a guilty pariah.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why is Israel a "pariah" while Hamas and the Chinese regime (to take a couple examples) aren't?

[wvattorney13]

https://babylonbee.com/news/auschwitz-guard-explains-he-doesnt-hate-jews-or-anything-just-zionists

[bernard11]

the idea that the left is innocent of antisemitism is absurd.

It is. Who is promoting that idea?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Technically nodody, but there's lots of "their-antisemitism-is-worse-than-ours" rationalizations to justify focusing more on ideological conflict than on making a cut-and-dried denunciation of *all* antisemitism.

And, yes, I include plenty of right-wingers in my criticism.

[Bwaaah]

"Love Jews. Hate Zionists."

So how, precisely, do they feel about me?

Malika confidently purports to thread that needle. Go figure.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not against Zionism, though of course Zionism=\=Judaism. And what do you have to do with it? Are you pretending to be a disaffected Zionist or Jew today?

[AmosArch]

Gender Ideology is chock full of motte and bailey fallacies. One could even argue that its built on them.

For example gender activists always move to estabilish trans gender identity (ie delusion) to essentially be the exactly same thing as if it was biological sex. Including in ways that don't make sense if it was just an mental identity. For example a trans identity for some reason makes it automatically okay for men to play on a girls team against other girls. When challenged however they withdraw to the Motte position its just an identity not actually biological and once the challenge ceases they go back to the Bailey of attempting to get men back on girl's sports teams.

A second example is intersexuals. Abandoning a defense of actual transgenderism to retreat to the Motte of pointing out the existence of rare biological intersexuals as somehow a justification for trans delusion is one of the most common tactics gender activists use, despite arguing the other half of the time that gender is not the same as biological sex.

A third example is the 'just want to be left alone'. Gender activists love to chant the Motte that 'they just want to be left alone' as they lobby for the Bailey of robbing taxpayers for sex changes for minors and felons. Taxpayer money to brainwash kids and hide it from their parents. 24/7 media programming for their cause. Garnering as much controversy as they can with a weirdly singular obsession with exposing kids to drag queens. Brutally punitive punishments for 'disrespecting' pronouns etc etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's all part of a big grift where genuinely confused people are encouraged by groups who smell big money in supporting the fantasies of individuals who need mental health support and not surgery and drugs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Amosarch — What do you have to say about the significance of the various permutatations: Motte v bailey; Motte and Bailey; Bailey v Motte; motte and Bailey; motte and bailey; etc.?

[ThePublius]

What's your point, Lathrop, other than to just toss sand into the gears of this discussion?

[Malika la Maize]

You have to admit there’s some weird thing that goes on with basic English writing skills and MAGAns, from the top to the bottom

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about?

[Malika la Maize]

Do you ever see Trump’s Truth Social posts?

Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and deflect from their disastrous SHUTDOWN, and all of their other failures, I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him. This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats. Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his “Island.” Stay tuned!!!

[Frank Drackman]

No, he has a life.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, says pathetic loser who emulates them daily, constantly.

MAGA draws the weird.

[not guilty]

As I asked on a prior thread, investigate those folks for what? Aggravated boat riding?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115548785919046772

Not to mention that prosecution for nearly any federal criminal offense that occurred before Epstein's death in 2019 would be time barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

This is not the first abuse of prosecutorial authority by the Trump administration as to events long past, nor is it likely to be the last. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/trump-conspiracy-probe-subpoenas.html

Donald Trump's attempt to turn the U. S. Department of Justice into his personal attack dog is reprehensible.

[wvattorney13]

If it is child sexual assault in the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States (Epstein Island) the SOL is life of the child OR 10 years whichever is longer. 18 USC 3283.

[not guilty]

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

[jb]

Interesting to try to hand wave away the existence of intersex people as "rare" when the population of intersex people is in the same order of magnitude (~1%) as the population of trans people.

But overall: it's interesting to see so many strawmen in just a few paragraphs. Maybe if you want to have a discussion about "Gender Ideology" it would be useful to try to discuss at least a few of the actual positions of the people you disagree with.

[hobie]

I noticed that each week's latest outrage causes AM radio to switch to the squirrel of transphobia. You'll have to forgive Amos 'Whatabout' Arch, he's just executing his programming.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only using a deliberately expansive definition of "intersex". Naturally Wikipedia seized on it.

How common is intersex? a response to Anne Fausto-Sterling

"Abstract
Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

[jb]

Those figures roughly represent the extremes of how you might count the frequency (since really we're talking about differences in how you define intersex), and the 0.018% number isn't really any better than the 1.7% number. Here's a page that lists how frequent various phenomena that some people might call intersex are:

https://isna.org/faq/frequency/

The "total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births" seems like a reasonable way to think about the overall frequency.

[Brett Bellmore]

But "intersex" doesn't MEAN "differs from standard", and that's the point.

[jb]

If you'd bothered to read the link (which William of Brooklyn quotes below), you'd see the actual point is that there's no widely agreed definition of the word "intersex".

[wvattorney13]

You keep missing the point. The term intersex had a well known definition for decades. Now some politically motivated scientists are feigning ignorance about the term so that they can more easily argue that intersex is very common and then conclude that biological sex is not really male/female. It is all results oriented.

[Sarcastr0]

The term intersex had a well known definition for decades

Neato ipse dixit.

'I never really thought too hard about it' is not the same as a well known definition.

[jb]

First, no one is arguing intersex is very common. Not sure where you're getting that from. It's quite rare.

Second, what is this well known definition that you speak of?

[Brett Bellmore]

First, JB:

"Interesting to try to hand wave away the existence of intersex people as "rare" when the population of intersex people is in the same order of magnitude (~1%) as the population of trans people."

When, no, it's about 100 times smaller.

[Michael P]

Reasonable people are not obliged to believe someone saying "there's no widely agreed definition" but tilting at windmills.

[jb]

As usual, your argument is a little too opaque for those of us not as clever as you.

[Michael P]

The essay you are defending has a ridiculously dishonest threshold for intersex -- and it tries to obscure this by using language other than "intersex" to include the vast majority of the 1-ish percent of people it counts as "bodies differ from standard male or female".

We should not treat seriously an argument that relies on using such broadly vague wording. It's either unhinged or dishonest.

[William of Brooklyn]

Not only are intersex statistics abused, they are totally irrelevant to remarks and claims about gender, as the vast majority of people claiming to be transgendered have never been evaluated chromosomally or in any of the other ways intersex status might be assessed. Transgenderism is emphatically and overwhelmingly a psychological phenomenon (and a socio-political fad among the Emperor-has-clothes set) that will recede (and according to new data IS receding) with time.

Here is some actual data on intersex people, which --again -- has ZERO to do with gender claims.

How common is intersex?

To answer this question in an uncontroversial way, you’d have to first get everyone to agree on what counts as intersex —and also to agree on what should count as strictly male or strictly female. That’s hard to do. How small does a penis have to be before it counts as intersex? Do you count “sex chromosome” anomalies as intersex if there’s no apparent external sexual ambiguity?[1] (Alice Dreger explores this question in greater depth in her book Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex.)

Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

Below we provide a summary of statistics drawn from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The basis for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the frequency of some of these conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for different populations. These statistics are approximations.

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

1 Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex—or Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35.

2 Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Karl Lauzanne, and Ellen Lee. 2000. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. __American Journal of Human Biology__ 12:151-166.

[Michael P]

Did you notice that the vast majority of those cases are late onset adrenal hyperplasia, which is so different from what most people would think of as an intersex condition that the essay has to lump it in as "differ from standard"?

At that point you might as well argue that custom fibrosis or sickle cell anemia are intersex conditions as well.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you know 1 in 5,000 women is born without a Vagina? In all other respects they're Female, Emotional, Inability to be Logical, Terrible Drivers, Poor Mathematical Skills, they just lack the Gash.
I think I met every one of them during my Dating Days, some guys get told "I have to wash my Hair", "I have a Headache", "I like you as a Friend",
I got the "I don't have a Vagina"

Frank "What is the deal with these women without Vaginas????"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol.

"At least have the courtesy to make up a believable lie!"

"No, really!"
____

"Mom, my doctor says I need this operation..."

"Maybe as a wedding gift, dear."

[AmosArch]

You can attempt to expand the number of intersexuals by including more and more minor abnormalities but the vast majority of them actually sort into male and female in stereotyped fashion. But it doesn't matter anyways because we should restore an actual objective biological tests to determine sex. It would be a far superior system to the if you feel it announce it on bluesky gender rainbow delusion.

[Riva]

“Trans”? Why the broad “trans” comparison? Are you suggesting that the minority with an actual physical intersex condition are as mentally disturbed as the transgender community in general?

[not guilty]

Riva, labeling adversaries as "mentally disturbed" or "sexually deviant" has a pretty sordid history.

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

https://www.history.com/articles/pink-triangle-nazi-concentration-camps

I am surprised that many commenters on these threads are shameless enough to resort to a tactic that such tyrants as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Breshnev gave a bad name.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - What a nice response after you grossly mispresented Riva's statement .

[not guilty]

Uh, the phrase "as mentally disturbed as the transgender community in general" presupposes that the transgender community in general is mentally disturbed.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Th transgender community in general is mentally disturbed. That is only disputed by those who want to deny reality.

[Riva]

Who is labeling an "adversary"? But what would an idiotic leftist response be without some projection?

[Joe_dallas]

He clearly misstated what you said, then condemned you for what he wrote, not what you wrote. Typical ethics for NG

[Riva]

I'm sure leftists may engage honestly on issues somewhere, just not sure where that is.

[Joe_dallas]

it hasnt been here

[not guilty]

Riva, do you dispute that you regard whoever has the temerity to disagree with you as an adversary for purposes of whatever discussion is being had? Your comment history suggests that you do.

[Malika la Maize]

First, its interesting to see the “delusion” thing pushed by the MAGA right, which often is quite willing to let lie or indulge various things that could be considered delusional (wild conspiracy theories, many traditional religious beliefs). As to the delusion theory, as I’ve mentioned here before there are other aspects where people “deny biological reality” and “indulge delusions”, such as when we treat the persons that adopt children as their mothers and fathers and their children as siblings to the adopted child. Another way of putting this is not letting biological facts always determine social and legal roles and duties. Biology needn’t, and shouldn’t, always be destiny.

Second, the sports thing usually involves kids sports, which is kind of supposed to be for fun and education. Co-ed sports teams are quite common at the younger levels and in less populated areas. The issue admittedly gets thornier as you get to older more competitive sports, but MAGAns aren’t to be taken as anything but disingenuous in their sudden defense of girl’s sports and Title IX.

The “weirdly singularly obsessive” likely says more about your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the trans community. The whole “drag queen story hour” thing likely involved a small minority of trans persons.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when the WNBA allows men to play.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, he’s this dumb.

“The issue admittedly gets thornier as you get to older more competitive sports”

[Frank Drackman]

Would love to see Shack (is that how you spell it? "Shack"??) pick up one of those Skinny WNBA Broads and throw her the length of the Court like a Spear.
If I was the Owner of Kaitlyn Clark's team I'd release every XX player except for her, sign 10 recently released NFL Defensive Linemen, what is it, 5 Fouls until you're ejected? Lets see how many cheap shots Katilyn gets with Jartavious, Martez, and "Switch Blade" Jackson defending her.

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Would love to see Shack (is that how you spell it? "Shack"??) pick up one of those Skinny WNBA Broads and throw her the length of the Court like a Spear."

-1. Missed opportunity to make an a propos metaphor about things flying across WNBA courts.

[jb]

"Second, the sports thing usually involves kids sports, which is kind of supposed to be for fun and education. Co-ed sports teams are quite common at the younger levels and in less populated areas."

Also, I don't think there's any real disagreement that the physical differences that make it important to separate men's and women's sports don't show up until puberty. So any debate about trans girls in sports for little kids is obviously about something other than competitive parity.

[Life of Brian]

So any debate about trans girls in sports for little kids is obviously about something other than competitive parity.

Is it really a discrete debate, though? I'm not aware of any advocates for men in women's sports who would be content with it just happening in young kids' sports with a hard cutoff at puberty. So we're really just talking about letting the nose of the camel in the tent (and that's setting aside the obvious concern of normalizing to young kids the notion that your gender is something you can select like your outfit).

[bernard11]

letting the nose of the camel in the tent

I don't think it's noses and tents people are worried about. nice choice of metaphor, though.

[Michael P]

We already know you're an asshole who can't argue on the merits or deal with very well-established metaphors. You don't have to remind us.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

I made a simple joke. You don't think it's funny? OK, but no argument was intended.

And you're a fine one to talk about arguing on the merits. You wouldn't know a decent argument if it hit you in the face and AFAICT you've never made one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Would you prefer something like, "letting the knife of the groomer in the pants of the child?"

[Malika la Maize]

Jeez, I think he was complimenting and playing off the metaphor. Man this issue gets you really emotional!

[bernard11]

Correct.

Why TiP and Michael are upset by my comment is a mystery to me.

[jb]

"Is it really a discrete debate, though? I'm not aware of any advocates for men in women's sports who would be content with it just happening in young kids' sports with a hard cutoff at puberty"

Well of course once you limit the discussion to "advocates for men in women's sports" you're probably right, but there are in fact many people that have nuanced views on a complicated topic, including that's it's fine to have mixed gender sports until puberty and/or where the competitive stakes are low, while still thinking that it's reasonable to exclude people who have had the physiological benefits of male puberty from high stakes competitive women's sports.

[Michael P]

"usually" does a lot of work there, as evidenced by intersex Olympians and cases like JayCee Cooper.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...such as when we treat the persons that adopt children as their mothers and fathers and their children as siblings to the adopted child."

Lol. Aren't you sick of getting your ass handed to you with this stupid analogy?

[Malika la Maize]

I can’t get sick of what hasn’t happened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you identify as someone who has used that dumb analogy successfully? The delusions really don't get any worse than that, do they.

[Michael P]

This is just one of many subjects where Malika lives in denial.

[Malika la Maize]

Denial? I mean, I prefer to think of you as more disingenuous than stupid but I’m at least open to the other view.

[Michael P]

As usual with Queenie, every accusation is a confession.

[Malika la Maize]

In that I identify with reality, you’re encouraging a delusion.

A trans person is someone who identifies and presents as a member of the opposite sex when biologically they are not.

An adopted child is someone who often identifies and presents as the offspring of and sibling to respectively the persons who adopted them and the latter’s offspring when they are biologically not.

In the latter case we encourage this socially and legally, in some places they’re doing the same with the former. Your fine with the latter, the former gives you the picks, it the analogy stands.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How well does your analogy work if I remove the adoptive relationship and apply it to a child who identifies and presents as an offspring to/sibling of people who he has never met?

Should we encourage, socially and legally, such a phenomenon?

If not, this would indicate that there's something about the adoptive relationship that you're failing to account for in your reasoning.

[Malika la Maize]

You do know legally and socially the kid is considered to be the child of the adopters on day one of the adoption, right?

Also, the questions of whether there’s a “delusion” (ignoring of biological fact) and whether we (society generally and the legal system) should indulge/encourage can be separate ones.

[Randal]

Come on, just say it tiny pianist! Adopted kids are deluded about their parentage.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I said above, I disagree.

[Randal]

Then you have mudbrain. If the magic wand of the state is sufficient to overcome biological relationships without resulting in "delusion," why isn't it sufficient to overcome biological gender?

On the other side of the coin, you and yours keep trying to apply descriptive terms like "delusional" or "mentally ill" to trans people, as if that changes anything. It is what it is. Maybe those are accurate terms, maybe there are better ones, but why does that matter? Even if trans people could be accurately described as delusional and mentally ill, they exist, we have medical science about what the best treatments are, and they're part of society. That their existence gives you cognitive dissonance is, frankly, your problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What does that have to do with what I just said?

If you remove the adoptive relationship, and apply your analogy to a kid who is not an adopted child, but has never met the people to whom he identifies and presents as their child, should we also encourage that? If not, maybe you're missing something about the adoptive relationship.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Also, the questions of whether there’s a “delusion” (ignoring of biological fact) and whether we (society generally and the legal system) should indulge/encourage can be separate ones."

But your argument doesn't shed any light on any of that. Take the hypothetical Sam. Sam suffers delusions and believes that he is offspring of King Henry VIII and Ann Boleyn.

So Sam identifies and presents as the offspring of King Henry VIII and Ann Boleyn and the sibling of Elizabeth I when biologically he is not.

And "[a]n adopted child is someone who often identifies and presents as the offspring of and sibling to respectively the persons who adopted them and the latter’s offspring when they are biologically not."

So by your reasoning, either adopted children are deluded, or Sam is not deluded and his belief should be socially and legally encouraged.

Ergo, your reasoning sucks. QED.

[Sarcastr0]

Delusions exist.

Not all departure from pure formalism is a delusion.

2 examples of the latter are sex v. gender identity and biological origin vs. familial identity.

1 example of the latter is a dude who thinks he's Napoleon.

If you're having trouble making the distinction here, the burden is on you to draw the line that separates out the adoption case from the others.

[Malika la Maize]

Sam is not the offspring of Henry and Anne but neither is Sandy (any adopted kid) the offspring of their adopted parents. Both are mistaken (deluded) if what’s important is biological correctness is the criteria.

Maybe biological correctness is not always the best criteria of whether a mistake is a delusion we should encourage or accept?

[Randal]

So by your reasoning, either adopted children are deluded, or Sam is not deluded and his belief should be socially and legally encouraged.

Is your tiny pianist brain bad at reading? Malika's point that you quoted was that those two questions (delusion vs. social recognition) are independent. That's what "separate" means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not all departure from pure formalism is a delusion."

So what? Assuming without conceding that adoption is a departure from pure formalism, it's possible for one departure to be a delusion but not another, which is enough to defeat Malika's claim.

"the burden is on you to draw the line that separates out the adoption case from the others."

No it's not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Maybe biological correctness is not always the best criteria of whether a mistake is a delusion we should encourage or accept?"

No one is claiming that is. But the burden is on you to show why we should accept different criteria. And the analogy with adoption doesn't do anything to show that.

[wvattorney13]

It has to be true. If we recognize adoption, then we simply must recognize every single other fiction that one can imagine. There cannot possibly anything that might distinguish any of them.

[Randal]

No, the point is that we as a society are fine legitimizing biological fictions in other contexts. Why not this one? It's not enough to simply point out that it is a biological fiction (assuming that's even true), you need something more. Unless you're also anti-adoption. Are you?

[wvattorney13]

I dispute that we say that adopted children are "biological" children. We don't say that. We understand it isn't true. If an adopted child goes to the doctor, the doctor doesn't ask if the adoptive parent has a history of cancer, heart disease, etc.

In any event, your side has made the irrelevant analogy. It is up to your side to justify how it is relevantly similar.

[Randal]

I dispute that we say that adopted children are "biological" children.

We also don't say trans men are biological males. Oh my god, what kind of retardedness reigns in the anti-trans community.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We also don't say trans men are biological males."

Then what was your point about biological fictions?

[Randal]

That is the point about biological fictions. Society accepts the biological fiction that an adopted child is the offspring of the adoptive parents. We acknowledge that the child is not the biological child, but we give the child the same legal status anyway.

Society could, in the same way, accept the biological fiction that a trans woman is the same sex as other women. We acknowledge that the trans woman is not a biological female, but we give her the same legal status anyway.

The adoption analogy proves that societal acceptance of biological fictions really isn't that hard.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We acknowledge that the child is not the biological child, but we give the child the same legal status anyway."

Huh? Just because two categories have the same legal status doesn't mean that one is a fiction of the other. You could just as easily argue that biological parents are fictive adoptive parents.

"Society could, in the same way, accept the biological fiction that a trans woman is the same sex as other women."

Society could treat men with gender dysphoria similar to the way we treat women if it wanted to, but the fact that we treat adoptive parents similar to biological parents doesn't inform us one way or another. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

[Malika la Maize]

Like a straw man?

[Riva]

Yeah, all for fun repulsive second string parrot troll. Like Payton McNabb who suffered a severe concussion and neck injury after being spiked in the face by a transgender athlete (that would be a male pretending he’s female because he can’t compete successfully against other males) during a 2022 high school volleyball game. And fun with some amusing long-term effects like impaired vision, partial paralysis, and headaches. And she’s not the only one having such fun at all levels of women’s sports.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot didn’t scan:

“The issue admittedly gets thornier as you get to older more competitive sports”

[Riva]

The issue is males competing against females, whether grade school, HS, college or professional, where injuries are likely and do happen regularly due to differences in physical abilities. There is NO issue with harmless games between little children, you fucking abysmally stupid second string parrot troll

[Malika la Maize]

Bot didn’t scan how pre-puberty the competitive differences are small to negligible.

[Riva]

How to make this clear? Not sure it's possible but let's try. There is NOT and has NEVER been an issue regarding harmless children's games, notwithstanding the rants of second stringer parrot trolls. The public objects to males wrongfully competing in women's sports by pretending to be female. Fortunately, fucking idiot second stringer parrot trolls do not get to define any issue. And the "trans" insanity corrupting sports is no exception.

[Josh R]

For example gender activists always move to estabilish [sic] trans gender identity (ie delusion) to essentially be the exactly same thing as if it was biological sex.

I don't. Gender identity is a trait (not a delusion) that does not categorically justify including trans women in women's sports.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gender identity isn't a coherent trait.

For normal people, gender identity consists simply of the knowledge that they are a particular sex.

For trans identified people, gender identity consists of the knowledge that they are a particular sex, plus an ideation or delusion that they really should have been the other sex.

The two aren't comparable.

[Josh R]

Both are a feeling about what sex you ought to be. For almost all, the two match and all is well. But for some, they don't and gender dysphoria results. Either way, it's a trait.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, one's a feeling about what you are and have experienced, and the other is a feeling about what you ought to be or should have experienced.

I identify as American because I was born and raised in America. Some other guy might identify as American because, even though he's never been to America or experienced what it's like to live and grow up here, he feels that the really should have been born and raised in the US.
Either one is a trait, but they're not the same trait.

[Josh R]

I disagree. Gender identity is a feeling of what you ought to be independent of what you are (noting that the two match for almost all).

[Life of Brian]

Gender identity is a feeling of what you ought to be

Then (surprise surprise) "gender identity" is nothing more than a concocted term that by its own definition applies only to gender dysphorics. For the normies, there is no "ought" -- there's just "is."

[Josh R]

No. When your gender identity matches your sex, things are fine. When it doesn't, you get dysphoria. But gender identity applies to all of us.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But "When your gender identity matches your sex" just means that you accept your sex without dysphoria, right? Just like most of us accept our height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc.

[Malika la Maize]

Most people accept their weight? I wonder who is buying all that ozympic.

[Life of Brian]

I wonder who is buying all that ozympic.

People buying Ozempic aren't in denial about the reality of their current weight -- the opposite, in fact.

Anorexics, on the other hand, believe themselves to be overweight no matter what the scale says or how far their bones stick out.

And we recognize that's a mental disorder and try to help bring them back to reality, not reinforce their delusion.

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPinhead, I have green eyes, which does not distress me at all. If it did, and if I wished to present as having brown eyes, I might get colored contact lenses. Would that make me ocularly dysphoric?

[Life of Brian]

It would make you a green-eyed dude wearing brown contacts. Not a green-eyed dude thinking, much less expecting anyone else to affirm, that he's actually a brown-eyed dude.

[Josh R]

But "When your gender identity matches your sex" just means that you accept your sex without dysphoria, right?

Yes. And, some people don't. It's the latter group's experience that tell us gender identity is a trait. For all of us, it's highly resistant (but not impossible) to change.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Most people accept their weight? I wonder who is buying all that ozympic."

People who want to lose weight. Not people who believe that their gravitational identity doesn't match their weight assigned by the scale.

[Randal]

Not people who believe that their gravitational identity doesn't match their weight assigned by the scale.

Have you never met someone on a diet? That's exactly what they believe!

[not guilty]

"Then (surprise surprise) "gender identity" is nothing more than a concocted term that by its own definition applies only to gender dysphorics. For the normies, there is no 'ought' -- there's just 'is.'"

Wrong, Life of Birdbrain. Gender nonconformity (an expression of gender identity) and gender dysphoria are sometimes found in the same person, but the two are separate. Gender dysphoria is not the sine qua non of gender nonconformity.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gender nonconformity (and gender conformity) are found in varying degrees in everyone, and everyone has a different idea of what gender conformity requires, so it really isn't a useful concept either.

[not guilty]

The point is that it is not "dysphoria" of any kind unless it is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Transgender persons can be delusional/mentally ill, just as cisgender persons can be delusional/mentally ill. But transgender status is not ipso facto mental illness as you bigots are fond of claiming.

Mentally ill transgender persons are but a subset of all transgender persons. just as mentally ill cisgender persons are but a subset of all cisgender persons.

[Randal]

So you admit it's a trait, just not the "same" trait.

I mean, sure, whatever, if that makes you feel better about yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, I said it's not a coherent concept.

Someone who believes that they are American because they were born and raised in the US and someone who has never been to the US but believes he is American because he has an ideation that he ought to have been born and raised in the US share the trait of believing they are American, but there's no underlying similarities behind that trait.

[wvattorney13]

Agreed. It's word salad. Because I believe I am President of the United States and Donald Trump believes that he is President of the United States, then I suppose you could say that both of us "have an opinion on whether we are President of the United States."

But that observation is meaningless. Any meaningful assessment of our statements MUST take into account that I am delusional and Trump is stating a true fact. If you don't recognize that then you are deliberately ignoring a key fact that is staring everyone in the face.

[Randal]

This is the stupidest of all the anti-trans strawmen.

Nobody, least of all trans people, believe that being trans is indistinguishable from being non-trans. It's sort of the whole ballgame! Trans women are born with a penis. No one is ignoring that key fact. It's the entirety of the problem, dumdum.

[wvattorney13]

I've noticed that when people are losing the argument they start name calling like little children.

[Randal]

Au contraire. I only engage in name-calling when I'm confident enough in my argument to know that the names are accurate. In other words, you've got nothing.

[Josh R]

If there were well over 100,000 Americans who believe they are Trump, suffer dysphoria as a result that cannot be ameliorated by treating the belief as a delusion, that would be evidence that Trump identity is a trait (and ditto for non-Americans believing they are American) that is not the same as being Trump. But of course, those conditions aren't met.

What the naysayers keep ignoring and discounting is the lived experience of the transgender. That's why we know that gender identity is a different trait than one's sex (although the two match for the vast majority).

[Sarcastr0]

This reads a lot more like you don't want it to be a coherent concept than that it's not one.

Your analogy isn't bad. Other people base their take on your nationality on perception as much as knowing your life history.

Insisting we need to make sure everyone's nationality matches their life history is doing a lot of work for no good reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who's insisting that? You can base nationality what on whatever you want. The point is that a classification based on fact isn't comparable to a classification based on ideation that's contrary to fact. It's like saying that Dick Durbin and John McCain have something in common because they both said that they served in Vietnam.

[Sarcastr0]

In the analogy with gender identity you are insisting that.

The analogy you made!

You seem determined to be unclear in your thoughts and posts here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm "[i]nsisting we need to make sure everyone's nationality matches their life history?"

No I'm not. I'm saying that a concept of nationality that equates people's life history with people's ideations that are inconsistent with their life history isn't a coherent concept, and therefore not very useful. Please read better.

[Randal]

No, you said it isn't a coherent trait. That alone is sort of ambiguous as to whether you think it's a trait at all. Then you said

Either one is a trait, but they're not the same trait.

and

I said it's not a coherent concept.

So I repeat:

So you admit it's a trait, just not the "same" trait.

I mean, sure, whatever, if that makes you feel better about yourself.

Who cares if the trait is "coherent?" What does that even mean?

You're just doing bigotry 101:

1. Draw a line separating us from them.

Either one is a trait, but they're not the same trait.

2. Disparage the other side of the line.

It's not a coherent trait.

Voila! You're superior, they're inferior. Easy peasy!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You're just doing bigotry 101:
1. Draw a line separating us from them."

We're all drawing lines. Most people think it makes sense to have women's sports. I'm not surprised that you think women's sports are bigotry. But the reasons we have women's sports don't apply to men who think they really should be women.

[Randal]

I don't think women's sports are bigotry any more than I think heavyweight boxing is bigotry. Which I don't.

I haven't seen anybody around here arguing for trans women in women's competitive sports. The vast majority of the left thinks that trans women should play in the men's category.

Nice pivot from bigotry to strawmen.

[David Nieporent]

The vast majority of the left thinks that trans women should play in the men's category.

Are you sure?

[Randal]

Yes. In competitive sports.

[David Nieporent]

I guess that the statement is unfalsifiable without specifying definitions of:

1) the vast majority;
2) the left; and
3) competitive.

Like, I think most people would classify, at a bare minimum, the NCAA D-I as "competitive sports."

[David Nieporent]

Both are a feeling about what sex you ought to be.

Again, you keep picking one particular conception of gender identity. But it really isn't a coherent concept, and means different things to different people. (I mean to different trans people; I'm not talking about how anti-trans people view it.) Yes, some say some variation of, "I have a male body but wish I did not." But some view it as a feeling about what sex they are.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think a nuanced understanding of sex vs. gender is needed before gender identity makes a lot of sense.

Sex, with some exceptions, is pretty hard binary. But societies don't regularly check genitals/chromosome, so the social aspect is the more perceptional, mutable, and culturally baggageful gender.
Not that gender isn't in constant dialogue with sex, hence why sex changes are all the rage among the trans set.

That mutable is wherein the whole ballgame lies. Which is why so many anti-trans folks run over to sex; it is more immutable, and it is what gender purports to be, even though social is not the same as biological.

Anyhow, that's my gender theory 101.

I count as anti-trans among the more lefty spaces even if on here I'm a gender bending lunatic.
-I tend to think we should take a functional approach to gender depending on why we care.
So bathroom access is based on perception; sports are hormonal; pronouns are preference.

-I also find the UK Cass study pretty convincing about the ambiguous information about early puberty suppression's benefits, and the costs are nontrivial and evident. So until there's more studies, I would as a policy matter not implement such a regimen.

[Josh R]

Perhaps it's not an agreed upon conception, but mine (I'm not buying the claim that gender identity is what sex you are) is coherent.

[Randal]

Because your whole post is a strawman army?

What do I win?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in the be care what you wish for (or more exactly support).
Like the blowhard virtue signalers of Martha's Vineyard who supported illegal immigration until illegals showed up in their portion of Whitelandia, South Africa (a vocal supporter of Hamas)
was surprised when 153 Gazanians showed up unannounced.
"... Israeli authorities allowed 153 Gaza residents to enter Isreal, travel to a nearby airport, board a chartered jetliner and fly to Johannesburg, via Nairobi."
" South African President Cyril Ramaphosa says there will be an investigation into the “mysterious” arrival of a chartered plane carrying 153 Palestinians from Gaza into the country."

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/unwanted-guests-arrive.php

[Mr. Bumble]

"careful"

[hobie]

I reckon they now qualify as 'white' South Africans. Looks like you'll have to grudgingly accept their matriculation, Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and why would I have to do that?

[ThePublius]

Last paragraph of the article:

"The war in Gaza is the first humanitarian crisis that I can recall where not a single country on earth has agreed to accept a single refugee from the area.

Why is that?"

Why, indeed.

[Malika la Maize]

Why do *you* think that is*?

*it appears to be false btw

[ThePublius]

I'm open: how is it false?

And why do I think that is? Because these people have demonstrated countless times that they will establish Hamas wherever they go. They are irredeemable.

[Sarcastr0]

"these people"

[Malika la Maize]

“Because these people have demonstrated countless times that they will establish Hamas wherever they go. They are irredeemable.”

That’s bigotry, plain and simple.

“I'm open: how is it false?”

https://cis.org/Rush/France-and-Gaza-Refugees

[Commenter_XY]

Polling is routinely conducted of the palestinians, the majority of whom indicate they fully agree with the tactics of hamas, with the Simchat Torah pogrom specifically, and support them.

That isn't bigotry. That is reality.

BTW, the war is not over.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the DNC apparently can be shamed into retracting a lie.

BREAKING: The official X account of the Democrat Party has DELETED their post claiming President Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017

But only because he was already President at the time, and there was too much proof he spent it at a Coast Guard station in Florida.

But why would they be stupid enough to make the claim in the first place?

[Mr. Bumble]

"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose..."
H/T B. Dylan

[jb]

"Well, the DNC apparently can be shamed into retracting a lie."

It's interesting to see that you think this is an argument against the Democrats, instead of realizing that there's nothing you can do to get Trump (or basically all of MAGA in general) to retract a lie.

[ThePublius]

That's a rather weak attempt using both deflection and whataboutism.

Did the Democrats lie? Yes. They deleted the post because they got caught.

It has nothing to do with what you think of Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but, but everything has to do with Trump.
See Qualika below.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re really this dumb, are t you? Yes, Trump’s comments directing the DOJ to investigate people because he was embarrassingly implicated has to do with Trump.

[ThePublius]

You're the dummy for changing the context of this thread. It is about the Dems lying on their official account, and then deleting it when caught. Period.

[Malika la Maize]

Pubes, you’re such a pathetically partisan tool. Bumble first referenced me and my downthread comment in this thread, I just responded.

Partisanship makes some people quite stupid.

Mr. Bumble 20 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
...but, but everything has to do with Trump.
See Qualika below

[John 4]

Go back to bed, dude. You got that brain fog.

[ThePublius]

Speak for yourself.

[Malika la Maize]

Way to own your mistake. Party of personal responsibility!

[Brett Bellmore]

That's my point: They ran with a pathetically easy to disprove lie, then dropped it when disproven.

But, even if they could be shamed into dropping the lie, why'd they tell it in the first place?

A lie can circle the globe while the truth is tying its shoe laces, the refutation will never catch up with all the repetitions, so it was a net gain. There's a long list of lies they've told about Trump and company, and the people who still believe them are legion.

[Malika la Maize]

This has been Motes with Brett Bellmore!

[wvattorney13]

I predict that they will post it again in a week and swear it is true. And then take it down again and say it was a mistake.

Hell, they are still pushing the "very fine people" garbage after 8 years even though that has been completely debunked and was clearly wrong from day one..

[Randal]

Naw, he actually said "very fine people." You could argue that he wasn't referring to white supremacists, but only if you believe that "very fine people" show up to an explicitly white-supremacist rally.

[wvattorney13]

That's the backtrack you always make after claiming that he said that the neo-Nazis were "very fine people."

When it is pointed out that you are wrong, you pivot to, "Well anyone at that rally was a white supremacist!"

Then the conversation wanes and then next time you claim that he said neo-Nazis were very fine people. You guys know the lies you are telling. And you keep losing.

[David Nieporent]

That's the backtrack you always make after claiming that he said that the neo-Nazis were "very fine people."

He said that the Nazis were very fine people. Full stop. Any other claim is a lie.

If I respond to one of your comments with, "You are a Nazi," and then a few minutes later I say, "When I said 'you,' I wasn't referring to you, but to someone else who isn't here," that does not mean that I didn't call you a Nazi. It means I realize that I could get in trouble for what I said, and so I'm trying to pretend I meant something else.

[wvattorney13]

I understand that you don't believe him. I get that. But point of fact, he did not say that Nazis were fine people. He expressly said that he was not talking about Nazis but others at the rally.

[David Nieporent]

He expressly said what you said afterwards; that's not what he initially said. Now, you could try to excuse it by saying that he was speaking imprecisely; that's implausible, though, because the whole reason he was speaking at all was because the previous day he had described the murder of Heather Heyer as the result of violence on both sides. This was a second press conference called to clean up the outcry over the first one.

Let's suppose there's a meeting of Hamas leadership, and Zohran Mamdani described them as "fine people." And then afterwards said, "I wasn't talking about the Islamic terrorists, because they should be condemned." Would a single person on the right say, "Oh, yeah, obviously he was talking about nonexistent people that he mistakenly believed were at this meeting, even though everyone else on the planet knew that everyone at a Hamas leadership meeting were Islamic terrorists"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

He said, "very fine people...and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

Now he may have been wrong about who was in the group, but he clearly didn't say that neo-Nazis were very fine people.

[David Nieporent]

Now he may have been wrong about who was in the group,

Did you hear that they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?

[Brett Bellmore]

Leftists regularly claim that very fine people show up at riots, so why not?

[Randal]

If it's billed as a riot, I would agree with you.

If it's billed as a protest, and it turns into a riot, and the very fine people don't participate in the riot, then you're full of shit.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure hate the leftists in your head you made up!

To be fair they are cartoonishly dumb and evil.

[jb]

It is obviously whataboutism, but a bunch of people who just a constant flood of overt lies from the leader of their party (and many others in the MAGA movement) to clutch their pearls over a deleted tweet is at this point just a demonstration of rank hypocrisy and that y'all have no actual principles.

Yes, it's bad that the DNC posted something that was obviously incorrect and that they could easily have checked on themselves. It's also good they deleted it! And yet, it's much worse that Trump lies all.the.time, doubles down on those lies, and never acknowledges that he's wrong, and all of you either ignore it, try to rationalize it, or just adopt the lies yourselves. If you really think lying by politicians is bad, act like you mean it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — In general, if you publish an untruth, for whatever reason, discontinuing its publication is regarded as responsible, not blameworthy. Nor is there reason to conclude that taking down an untruthful publication is evidence that it was intended as a lie. For that conclusion you need more evidence. Like someone saying, "Sure it's false, but if we publish it anyway it will hurt our opponents." Got anything like that?

[ThePublius]

It's a common ploy, Stephen; don't be so naive. You publish a lie that hurts your opponent, that's widely shared. Far fewer notice when it's been deleted, retracted, or corrected. The damage is done.

Note the Dem official account never repudiated what it posted, it just deleted the post.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius —Finally you have mentioned something substantive. I can help with it. You wrote:

Note the Dem official account never repudiated what it posted, it just deleted the post.

Doing it that way is customary, and for good reason. Any attempt to repudiate a factual error previously posted requires publishing again the untrue allegation. Publishers learned long ago that doing it that way will inevitably give further currency to the untruth, while only partly correcting the misimpressions of those deceived by it.

Thus, the better means to publish a correction is to label it a correction, refer to the general topic without republishing the mistaken information, and instead publish the correct information. As a practical matter that is the best any publisher can do after publishing mistaken information.

If you make it a point to notice, you will see that method followed almost universally by the nation's most responsible media. And you need not worry much that doing it that way is an attempt to duck responsibility. Managers in media remain harsh critics of employees who get important facts wrong. Not in all media, but in media which compete on the basis of accuracy, instead of catering to presumed preconceptions among audience members.

[Sarcastr0]

The MAGA truly tell on themselves when they keep acting like retraction or apology is a sign of weakness.

They have no principles, only targets.

[Malika la Maize]

Never retreat, reload!

[Michael P]

When Republicans mess up, that's the story. When Democrats mess up, the Republican response is the story.

Try harder to distract from the Democrat Party memory-holing yet another blatant lie that they pushed.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical hypocricy is so pure.

You have zero evidence it was a lie versus a mistake. You're super duper eager to call it a lie even so. Those vibes are super lyish, eh?

That claim without evidence is itself kinda dishonest, if you think about it.

[Michael P]

You have nothing but a straw man, as usual.

I mean, maybe the email was just too good for them to check, but that's functionally impossible to tell from intentionally lying about it, and deleting the Xeet is not the same as "retraction or apology".

[Sarcastr0]

that's functionally impossible to tell from intentionally lying about it

And yet, look at you, doing the impossible!

You admit you can't know, so why do you pretend like you do? Unclear; what is clear is you're not being honest.

[Michael P]

My words were "mess up", asshole.

For someone who accuses me of telepathy, you are repulsively quick to rewrite what I actually wrote. Back on mute you go, troll.

[Sarcastr0]

Here were your words: "distract from the Democrat Party memory-holing yet another blatant lie that they pushed."

For fuck's sake, Michael.

[Michael P]

(Temporarily off mute to respond.)

Is your theory that Jeffrey Epstein was telling something like the truth in the email that the Dems quoted in their deleted tweet?

Because that would be a really dumb theory. What he wrote was a blatant lie, Democrats indeed pushed it, and then they deleted evidence that they did.

[David Nieporent]

Is your theory that Jeffrey Epstein was telling something like the truth in the email that the Dems quoted in their deleted tweet?

Because that would be a really dumb theory. What he wrote was a blatant lie, Democrats indeed pushed it, and then they deleted evidence that they did.

Why would Epstein lie about that to a random person in a private email? Isn't a more sane explanation that he told the truth, but that what he said was ambiguous and was misinterpreted? He didn't say "Donald Trump is coming to my Thanksgiving dinner." He said that Donald Trump is "down there." Which could've simply meant "down in Palm Beach."

Or that Epstein was telling the truth, but that Trump changed his plans after the emails were sent? (The emails were early morning on Thanksgiving.)

That having been said, the "evidence" that Epstein's statement was even wrong is nonexistent. What's cited is a tweet from Melania that they were "spending part of our Thanksgiving w/ the local Coast Guard station in Florida." But that doesn't even contradict the claim! One can visit more than one person over Thanksgiving weekend!

[Life of Brian]

You have zero evidence it was a lie versus a mistake

I'll bite: what would be a remotely plausible basis for such a fortuitous "mistake"?

Certainly you're not suggesting that the self-proclaimed mouthpiece of the party has a practice of just posting random shit they think might be true and then going back and actually checking the stuff they get called on.

[Michael P]

You say fortuitous mistake, I say gullible incompetence. I think they could have seen something that looked like good material, and didn't think to double check it even though it came from Jeffrey Epstein's terminal phase. It is hard to tell that from realizing that Epstein was lying to make himself look good again, and knowingly going along with Epstein's lie.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, something about reckless disregard for the truth.

It's just astounding to me that anyone could string together the words "JEFFREY EPSTEIN said . . ." in a sentence like it's supposed to be some sort of uber-weighty smoking gun.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The DNC posted a November 23, 2017 E-mail exchange between Epstein and Faith Kates. In the course of that exchange, Epstein listed several people, including Trump, who Epstein said were going to be at the Thanksgiving dinner that Epstein was going to attend. Based on this evidence, the DNC claimed that “Documents show Donald Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017.”

[Life of Brian]

Ah, you actually just took things one step further away from a good-faith misunderstanding.

Had they said "[Epstein] documents say X," there would have been no issue since that was actually correct. But then people would just roll their eyes and move on to the next tabloid headline, because -- even setting aside the fact that the statements were forward-looking -- Epstein left this world with zero credibility.

Instead, they went with "documents show X," which is a different proposition altogether. Credibility aside, a document discussing something that might happen in the future can't show that it actually happened.

Certainly these fine people were smart enough to understand that rather basic difference, and chose the words for their bloodbath headline with care.

[Kenneth Almquist]

There is no real difference between “show” and “say” in this context. Both would be an interpretation of the evidence, which the DNC provided so that readers could review the evidence and decide for themselves.

[Drewski]

The DNC isn't the "Democrat Party." That's a tiny third-party organization in the rust belt.

[not guilty]

I remain amazed that those who refer to the "Democrat Party" think that the use of non-standard English is persuasive.

I understand the temptation to tweak the opposition. I sued to refer pretty regularly to the GOP as Rethuglicans and the Rethuglican Party. I quite doing that when I realized that it detracted from the substance of my criticisms of Republicans.

I suppose that for some the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh is simply irresistible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHpSY3IoAI&list=RDSoHpSY3IoAI&start_radio=1

[Joe_dallas]

Not guilty 29 minutes ago

I remain amazed that those who refer to the "Democrat Party" think that the use of non-standard English is persuasive.

Democrat has become the generic term for the democratic party. Very similar to coke, aspirin, etc. You on the other tried to get cute with creating a derogatory term.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep using that term. It lets everyone know what you are.

[Joe_dallas]

Its been the generic term for the last 60-70 years,

Bitching about the use of a generic term it tells everyone who you are

[Sarcastr0]

It hasn't been the generic term for at least the last 20 I've been paying attention.

You are, as usual, just saying things you want to be true, not actually true things.

But hey, since you want it so much go ahead and call it the Democrat party. Use it early and often. As I said, it'll let everyone know who you are.

[David Nieporent]

It has never been the generic term, because that's not what generic means!

[Joe_dallas]

DN - cant help himself - lying again

[Joe_dallas]

Democrat party usage has been around since 1890ish

Democrat Party" has a long history of usage by opponents of the Democratic Party—mostly Republicans but also third party leaders like Ralph Nader.[2] The history has been traced by scholars and commentators to the early 20th century.[3] The earliest known use of the term, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in Britain in 1890: "Whether a little farmer...is going to rule the Democrat Party in America."[4] The term was used by Herbert Hoover in 1932, and in the late 1930s by Republicans who used it to criticize Democratic big city machines run by powerful political bosses in what they considered undemocratic fashion.

[David Nieporent]

Democrat has become the generic term for the democratic party. Very similar to coke, aspirin, etc. You on the other tried to get cute with creating a derogatory term.

This manages to mangle both grammar and trademark law! It's a nonsensical analogy.

[not guilty]

"Democrat has become the generic term for the democratic party. Very similar to coke, aspirin, etc. You on the other tried to get cute with creating a derogatory term."

No, Joe_dallas, for all the time you reference, "Democrat" has remained a noun, while "Democratic" has remained an adjective. The "Democrat Party" reference remains non-standard English which grates like fingernails on a chalkboard, as those who speak the phrase surely intend. (And I have never claimed that my previous use of "Rethuglican" was original to me.)

It is hard to think of folks less worthy of emulation than Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - you cant help yourself

Technically, democrat may be a noun, so be it. beta phi delta

I has been used in a generic sense for most all the the 20th century.

Quite simply - you are bitching about the use of a term that has become standard usage for quite some time.

[ducksalad]

Time to let it go, ng. It's pervasive enough that I bet you can find Democrats doing it. It comes naturally because the person is correctly called "a Democrat".

You're better off just owning it.

[not guilty]

I am reminded of William Safire's remark in the New York Times "On Language" column that he planned to get a dog and name it Peeve, so he could introduce it to folks as "This is my pet, Peeve."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I remain amazed that those who refer to the "Democrat Party" think that the use of non-standard English is persuasive."

Do you think it's more or less persuasive than constructions like "Pam (bottle) Blondi"?

[Joe_dallas]

Twelve - careful - you are calling out their inane double standards

[Longtobefree]

They weren't shamed into it; democrats have no sense of shame.
They determined it was in their political interest to delete the post and allow the propaganda press to memory hole it.

[Sarcastr0]

'Watch me take my hatred of Dems and use it to bootstrap a new otherwise unsupported belief to be mad at Dems about!'

A lot of people on this here site mix up feeling validated with saying something true.

[Kazinski]

The real scoop is 20,000 emails and there is nothing there.

Interesting tidbits like Steve Bannon helping Epstein with PR, and Epstein texting with Democratic delegate Stacy Plaskett in real time when she was questioning Michael Cohen.

We did see Epstein confirm Trump's statement that he banned Epstein from Mar a Lago because he was recruiting his Mar a Lago staff ("“[O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”)

But so far it confirms the the statements from Bondi and Patel that there is nothing incriminating in the Epstein file.

As I said a long time ago, if there was a cover-up it was in 2008. Epstein would have been insane to start compiling dossiers and videos, logs and other incriminating stuff after he was already a convicted sex offender.

And as I said a few weeks ago, nobody has publicly made any allegations against Trump or any other prominent GOPer.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, not everything can be as rock solid as a Congressional press release identifying whistleblowers that never went under oath and ended up trying to join the right-wing griftbook train.

If your standard is is there anything indictable, you're missing the optics here.

The vibes, if you will, are very bad. Even if I agree the facts are not well established.

Add in Trump working hard to keep things from coming out, and this is a gaping political wound with respect to a nontrivial part of the MAGA base.

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed that after the IRS Whistleblowers complained that DOJ and the IRS were stalling and trying to let Hunter off the hook for tax evasion and gun charges, the non prosecution agreement was scrapped and charges were finally filed, and Hunter had to plead guilty to give his dad time to pardon Hunter while he could.

Bottom line: was Hunter convicted of tax evasion or not?

[Josh R]

I agree. There is nothing there. Why then doesn't Trump release all the files?

[Joe_dallas]

Why didnt Biden release the Epstein files?

[Malika la Maize]

Why didn’t Trump?

[Joe_dallas]

Malika & randal
Both providing a BS excuse to

Malika asks - Why didnt trump - Notably absent was Malika silence during the Biden administration

Randal states that it would be unethical if biden released the epstein files. Then why would it not be unethical if Trump released the epstein files.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump promised to do it grand jury rules bedamned.

Now he’s gotten the coldest feet the fastest ever.

And you are trying to whattabout.

[Randal]

It would be unethical if Trump released them unilaterally. It's less unethical -- but still not great IMO -- for Congress to approve their release... ideally with an actual bill.

[Randal]

Why didnt Biden release the Epstein files?

Because it's wildly unethical.

Which is notably not the reason Trump hasn't.

[Josh R]

Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files?

Because 1) Biden is a third-party and 2) there is nothing in them. In Trump's case he isn't a third party, so if there is nothing in them, he should release them.

[Commenter_XY]

Everything should be released, including GJ transcripts. Let the chips fall where they may.

Anyone who molested minors along with Epstein and his sick friends should not walk freely and openly on our streets, without sanction. And we know that there are. They must be identified and shunned. If the statute of limitations on a crime has not run out, then prosecute.

Some women (and probably some men, too) have committed suicide over things that happened around Epstein. They deserve justice.

[Josh R]

I agree. But, Trump doesn't want to. Why do you think that's the case?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't care why; my interest is only in full disclosure.

[David Nieporent]

But so far it confirms the the statements from Bondi and Patel that there is nothing incriminating in the Epstein file.

I have been saying for quite some time that Epstein was a pedophile (yeah, yeah, ephebophile), not a pimp; that therefore there is no "client list," and therefore that Trump couldn't be on it.

The behavior of every person except Trump makes me continue to believe that's true. Trump keeps acting guilty, desperately trying with all his might to keep all Epstein information secret. It's hard to figure out why, if there's nothing there, he would do that.

[Josh R]

He's doing it for the same reason he obstructed Comey's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He's such a hopeless narcissist, he can't stand anything that detracts from his greatness. So even if totally innocent, he had to obstruct getting unsolicited help from the Russians.

In this case, there is something in the files that will be embarrassing but nowhere near criminal. And, that's enough for Trump to quash the release.

[David Nieporent]

What is "the Democrat Party"?

[Estragon]

This one goes out to Life of Brian:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.187.2.pdf

[Life of Brian]

I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to guess what your point might be?

[Malika la Maize]

Trump has now blatantly called for, and Bondi has agreed to engage in, prosecution of opposition political figures because he’s embarrassed that he was implicated in something. Remember when MAGAns accused Obama and Biden in directing investigations of Trump?

Every accusation is a confession.

[Frank Drackman]

That's the Hill you've chosen to die on??
Don't let me stop you.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

What specific Hill are you referring to, or do you have some mental condition that impacts your writing?

[Frank Drackman]

It's an Allegory, an Allusion, a Mirage, do I have to draw you a Diaphragm?? Do you want a standing Ovulation? It's like I say I'm beating a dead Horse and you call the NAACP, and speaking of mental conditions, look up "Concrete Thinking" there Mr. McMurphy.

[Malika la Maize]

MAGA draws the weird. QAnon Shaman Francis.

[John 4]

Absolute gibberish

[Frank Drackman]

Performers gotta play up (or down) to his Audience, just pretend I'm some Transexual Poet from East Elbonia and you'll love it.

[Malika la Maize]

“Performers”

Pathetic, he is a Big Fan-Shaman mix. Sad.

[Bwaaah]

Sad, like boo-hoo sad? Or sad, like I-can't-see-that-far-down-my-snooty-hater-nose sad?

Are you sure you're not Frank Drackman's bitchy older sister?

[Malika la Maize]

Bwaah doesn’t think the QAnon Shaman is sad or weird. He says “colorful!”

[DDHarriman]

>Remember when MAGAns accused Obama and Biden in directing investigations of Trump?

Remember Obama and Biden directed investigations of Trump?

[Malika la Maize]

Even were this true, neither publicly called for it and had their AG respond essentially sir, yes sir! It was the conclusion of conspiracists that this had happened that was supposed to be the outrage, yet Trump just did exactly that and…crickets..

They never cared about the principles at stake.

[David Nieporent]

Remember Obama and Biden directed investigations of Trump?

No. The most that has ever been revealed is that they were aware of the investigations. There's not a single document showing that Obama or Biden ordered any of them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump has conducted a program to make criminal conduct in office so commonplace that there will be too much of it to make subsequent prosecution look useful. The aim seems to include creation of a class of holders of high office who understand themselves empowered to abet Trump's own criminality without fear of personal consequences—or in expectation of actual enrichment by criminal decree. Trump issues floods of unwarranted pardons, and publicizes them, to deliver that encouragement.

Democrats running for midterm office ought to think hard—and together—about ways to campaign to counter all that. They must campaign to inhibit politically the corrupt support Trump/MAGA expects—and seems to be getting—from the Supreme Court—and especially the Court's decree of kingly power for Trump.

The only checks available at present are either an impossible impeachment, or politics forthrightly announced to hold Trump's abettors criminally responsible for whatever acts they commit to assist Trump in flagrant crimes for which the Court granted impunity. Forget the impeachment, and campaign on accountability for abettors. Remind them that Trump has no power to pardon crimes committed under state laws.

Concern to avoid setting off tit-for-tat retaliation in political affairs is no longer worth considering. The political criminality could not get more commonplace, nor more flagrant, than it has already become. Open, flaunted, criminality of this sort and on this scale has never before been seen in American governance.

Trump orders his Justice Department to go selectively after his political opponents, citing as justification the Epstein scandal in which he himself is apparently enmeshed. While doing that, Trump maneuvers to pardon Trump/MAGA operatives for any crimes they commit.

Trump and Congress collude to pass bills to enrich with public money both Trump, and Congress members, The payoffs are for publicly endorsing crimes so flagrant they provoked major investigations, multiple indictments, and hundreds of convictions. Which Trump reversed with blanket pardons.

Trump's Justice Department lies in court rooms, without apparent consequence for the liars. They seem to lie about the substance of everything which comes to court, and also about the conduct of administration members in response to court orders.

Meanwhile, various types of anonymous, masked, law enforcement thugs (pointedly wearing literal brown shirts) attack without discrimination, American citizens, immigrants, and peaceful protestors of all kinds. To make a point that no one should even try protest, the thugs shoot clergy members in the head with pepper balls, or arrest them violently at detention sites where they have arrived to deliver spiritual aide to detainees.

When courts demand an accounting, the thugs lie as if they were high administration officials, and get away with it likewise. Judges themselves are evidently quailing in response to threats of violence against their families. Only a few have dared discuss that in public.

The crime and violence are performative—intended to cause fear and induce meek compliance. That must be checked by an opposite response.

There is no longer point to geographically dispersed demonstrations against the Trump/MAGA regime. Henceforth, demonstrations must be focused. It is time to mobilize demonstrators, and convene crowds large enough to put violent counter-measures out of the question. No more conceding the streets themselves to the thugs. They obstruct the streets as thoroughly as any crowd of demonstrators could do, without the demonstrators' Constitutionally protected rights to be there. But demonstrators have been meekly herded into tiny cordoned areas designated free speech zones. Let's see how aggressive ICE and the other thugs will be when confronted by crowds numbering 200,000 or more.

This nation has famously been characterized, "A Republic, if you can keep it." There has never been any doubt that the, "you," in Franklin's famous quote was intended to be the American People themselves. The time for the People's republic-keeping activity has arrived.

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Qualika:
"Every accusation is a confession."

[ThePublius]

I have never seen so much bullshit heaped into one post. How do you do it?

On top of that, you seem to be calling for violence against immigration and law enforcement officers.

"But demonstrators have been meekly herded into tiny cordoned areas designated free speech zones." That's total bullshit. Tell me when that has happened in Portland or Chicago, for example.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump IS the tit for tat, surely you should realize that. Yes, he has embarked on high level lawfare against his enemies, THIS term. But that's only after Democrats set out to do it to him and everyone around him.

The is the payback, idiot, not the original provocation.

[Malika la Maize]

This of course means that everyone who criticized those measures against Trump are being hypocrites in not denouncing when he engages in the same.

[DDHarriman]

Or, those people realized the only way to make fascist Democrats stop being fascist is to hold them accountable.

The difference between the 'tat' and the 'tit'? The tit isn't using extra-legal novel theories with judges in cahoots.

[Malika la Maize]

You have to become fascist to stop fascists!

Luckily for Chuck//Lex/DHH, he’d been there the whole time!

[CountmontyC]

You were warned at the time that if you wanted to play by the new rules allowing lawfare that you would not like it when the other side responded in kind. The time to oppose lawfare is when it starts and not only when it is used against your side. If the only time you oppose lawfare is when it is used against your side you are not really opposing lawfare you are just demanding that the other side unilaterally disarm.

[Sarcastr0]

It's an engine of infinite justification, setting the bar for what's defensible at your partisan take on the other side's actions.

[CountmontyC]

You are a perfect example of my post. You supported every lawfare assault against Trump as they occurred and only now do you declare lawfare wrong and I would be quite willing to bet that if the Democrats regain any authority you would support any lawfare they use against their political opponents. You don't oppose lawfare you only oppose lawfare against your side.

[Malika la Maize]

The “well you are too” response to a charge of hypocrisy.

[CountmontyC]

Did you oppose lawfare when it was targeted against Trump and his supporters? If not your complaints about lawfare being turned against your side now is hypocritical and hollow.

[Malika la Maize]

You really don’t get that’s a double edged sword, do you?

[CountmontyC]

That is what you were warned about. We told you that if lawfare was acceptable when your side did it we would use that new set of rules when our side took power. If you want lawfare to end both sides need to stop it not just one side and since your side still hasn't denounced the lawfare against Trump and his supporters ( quite the contrary your side still supports it) why should the lawfare from the Trump Administration stop.

[ducksalad]

Count, let me explain the debating error you just made.

You explicitly admitted your side is doing lawfare.
Malika has not made that particular admission.

Hint from an impartial observer who believes it was all lawfare and all illegitimate. Turnabout lawfare is worse because it's by definition intentional.

[CountmontyC]

Duck no. We know that lawfare was used by the Biden Maladministration and it's allies. We know this because much of it required "novel" interpretations of the law. We also know it because Leticia James ran on a promise to prosecute Trump, we know lawfare was involved because we know Comey set up a situation where the media could report on the Steele dossier, we know because of the reports about Arctic Frost, that Obama interfered on intelligence reports, that despite denials the state prosecutors coordinated with officials at Biden's (in) justice department, that the FBI coordinated with teacher's unions to come up with a reason to investigate parents that attended PTA meetings, investigated Catholics that attended Latin mass and much more. Denounce all that lawfare and we can discuss ending all lawfare but until then what goes around comes around.

[Sarcastr0]

All of this is shit from like Powerline and isn't true.

-much of it required "novel" interpretations of the law.
It did not.

-Leticia James ran on a promise to prosecute Trump
She did not.

- Comey set up a situation where the media could report on the Steele dossier
What did he set up? And how? It was not some deeply kept secret, it was all over Washington before it leaked.

-the reports about Arctic Frost, that Obama interfered on intelligence reports,
What reports? What did Obama do?

- despite denials the state prosecutors coordinated with officials at Biden's (in) justice department,
Another zero evidence accusation

- that the FBI coordinated with teacher's unions to come up with a reason to investigate parents that attended PTA meetings
The FBI investigated criminal conduct like threats and harassment. Not 'parents that attended PTA meetings.' Union coordination is another what-are-you-talking-about

-investigated Catholics that attended Latin mass
There was a report on Catholic extremists. Nothing like what you're claiming though.
--------------------
You read propagandists, add some misunderstandings of your own, and it's made you so far off reality you can't actually engage with anyone on politics since you can't come to a common reality.

[CountmontyC]

Sarcastro the Leticia James promise was discussed here

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2018/12/24/how-letitia-james-says-she-plans-to-investigate-president-donald-trump-once-new-york-attorney-general

Investigations of religious groups without cause is purely disgusting.

The media refused to report on the Steele dossier until Comey told Trump about some of the allegations and then leaked about the meeting to give them an excuse to report on it.

Your obstinate denials of the facts is why the lawfare will continue.

[Sarcastr0]

"We're going to continue to look at his business transactions and his holdings here in the state of New York"
That's not prosecute.

And not that this, and your other comebacks are all new goalposts!

So for example when pushed, you switched from 'investigated Catholics that attended Latin mass' to 'investigated Catholics.'

You knew the previous thesis was a lie, and so you came back with a backpedal *that was still false*

Which means you knew you were making shit up the first time.

So shut the fuck up. You lied. And when challenged you as much as admitted it and just switched to new lies.

You're not someone who can't get to a common reality, you're someone who doesn't care about reality and wants to throw chaff at people.

If I had to pick who is an actual Russian of all the posters here, it'd be you. Factlessly raising the noise to drown out the signal.

You're a really bad poster. I'm muting your for your posting crime.

[not guilty]

"Did you oppose lawfare when it was targeted against Trump and his supporters? If not your complaints about lawfare being turned against your side now is hypocritical and hollow."

Which of the criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump and/or his allies, if any, do you claim were not supported by probable cause, CountmontyC? No defendant won anything related to the factual merits, or lack thereof, of any charges.

Which of the potential charges against Trump's enemies that Trump is furiously yapping and yammering about do you contend are supported by probable cause?

The ethos of Joseph Stalin's henchman Lavrentiy Beria, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime," is no way to run a criminal justice system.

[Sarcastr0]

I have factual disagreements with you on what counts as lawfare.

You and I agree on the facts re: Trump.

You want to argue Trump’s actions are fine. They are not fine. No matter the facts of lawfare or not.

[David Nieporent]

Do you have a form of Tourette's that causes you to say "lawfare" over and over? Investigating and prosecuting actual criminals is not "lawfare."

[Commenter_XY]

Your problem is the rules your team made are being enforced by the opposite team. The shoe is on the other foot, Man of Science. I did warn you.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Three more long years. Who knows what happens after that.

[DDHarriman]

Stephen,

There's already been the tat. That was 2016 - 2024. Now is the era of the tit.

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump was president from 2017-2020.

[Frank Drackman]

This whole "(Insert name here) is a Liar!!!!!!!!" is so played out, it's like saying Jerry Nadler's Fat or Pete Booty-Judge takes it up the Keester, True, but to what end? (HT S. Dante)
I can say "AlGore diddled his maid", "Robert KKK Bird was in the KKK", "Barry Obama said the "N-word", "Cums-a-lots Hubbie "Dougie" slapped a woman in public, all True, but again, to what end?
That's been my favorite phrase lately, "To what end?", it comes in handy in so many Sitch-u-Asians.
And to answer, this whole Epstein/Shut Down Bullshit has been to stop the Lindsay-Buckingham-Nicks-Grahams of the world from getting us into WW3 in You-Crane, hasn't been in the news much the last few weeks, has it?? Everyone's too concerned with Alan Dershowitz's Schlong. (That's my goal, to be 87 and people are still talking about my Schlong)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

How sad is it for a person to either be unable to perform basic English writing skills or such a sad, weird person he emulates the current President’s writing style like a sad version of Patton Oswald’s Big Fan character?

MAGA draws the weird.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't know Patton Oswald, or this "Big Fan" character but I think I'm going to like them.

[Malika la Maize]

Shouldn’t that be Character, Shaman Francis?

[Bwaaah]

Should it, Malicia?

(Oh, look. Now I'm down there fucking with the name-calling. Drackman's a toilet vortex and Malicia a locked-in swirly.)

[Malika la Maize]

Pretending to be a disaffected white knight today?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's been imitating an admittedly annoying Rush Limbaugh shtick. It's got nothing to do with imitating Trump, who has his own differently annoying way of talking.

[Malika la Maize]

Nope, look at Trump’s Truth Social posts. It’s pathetically weird

[Frank Drackman]

It's Rush Limbo, and I don't know what "Shtick" you're referring to since I stopped listening to him around 1995 (he stopped being funny and became Morley Shafer)
Oh, and that awful "Mannheim Steamroller" X-mas Music he'd play.

[Malika la Maize]

Kyiv endured another brutal night under attack on Friday as Russian missiles and drones struck it, killing six people and injuring dozens more, according to the local authorities. Firefighters and emergency workers were called to multiple districts of the city to deal with the consequences of the assault.

The targets of the overnight attack were not immediately clear. Most recently, Russian aerial assaults have regularly hit the country’s power grid, an effort to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness as winter looms. The Ukrainian Air Force said Russia had launched 19 missiles and 430 drones across the country, most of which were shot down. These figures could not be independently verified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/world/europe/ukraine-kyiv-russia-strike.html

March 4, 2023. Speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them.”

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for proving my point, if Epstein or Dershowitz isn't mentioned nobody cares.

[Bwaaah]

I hadn't heard any concerns for Ukraine in I don't know how long. And oh, what a coincidence, you and Malicia coincidentally hit that note at the same time.

Well, you hit it slightly before Malicia did, but that's what makes it such a coincidence. (And they call the right "reactionary.")

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, it was just a headline from the NYT. No attention at all!

I regularly point out Trump’s idiotic promise with the ongoing reality. Are you a recently disaffected Putin or Ukraine supporter today?

[DDHarriman]

Epstein was texting Democrats and feeding them things to say in Congressional hearings re: Trump, but -- strangely -- never texted the Democrat Congressmen "tell them about the BJ" or "tell them about the young girls"...

lmao liberals are so stupid

[dwb68]

Yann LeCun, practically the inventor of AI, thinks large language models are a dead end. He thinks "world models" are the future.

So far, I have to agree.

Then again, Einstein said god does not play dice with the universe, and he was wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I remember when it was decided that neural networks were a dead end; They couldn't emulate an XOR gate, that was pretty bad.

Then somebody realized you could layer them, and they really took off.

I agree that LLM's as currently constituted are not really "intelligence" as such. And yet, they can do a convincing enough imitation of human intelligence that they do all sorts of useful things.

The problem is the inevitable stupidities that creep in, because they don't actually UNDERSTAND anything they're imitating.

But, the dirty little secret is, humans aren't doing actual intelligence most of the time. Being intelligent is mostly an error handling routine for humans, when we're learning something. Once we've 'learned' it, intelligence switches off again, and we're doing something enough like what the LLM's do, that we see intelligence in their output.

I think LLM's are most of the way there, they're a part of artificial intelligence. They just need that error detection and handling.

[dwb68]

"humans aren't doing actual intelligence most of the time"

lmao. Some more than others.

[Sarcastr0]

Lowering the bar for what counts as AI based on cynicism about humanity is...a take.

Not a useful one in this post-Turing world, but it is a take!

[Bwaaah]

Look who jumps in to unknowingly model Brett's point.

[Mr. Bumble]

Such is the life of a douche.

[ThePublius]

Fed Study Vindicates Trump Trade Policy: 150 Years of Evidence Shows Tariffs Lower Inflation

"Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco examined major tariff changes from 1870 through 2020 across the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Their conclusion challenges the conventional wisdom that dominated economic policy debates in recent years: when countries raise tariffs, prices actually fall, not rise.

“We find that a tariff hike raises unemployment and lowers inflation,” the authors, Régis Barnichon and Aayush Singh, write in their working paper released this month.”This goes against the predictions of standard models, whereby CPI inflation should go up in response to higher tariffs.”"

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/11/14/fed-study-vindicates-trump-trade-policy-150-years-of-evidence-shows-tariffs-lower-inflation/

[jb]

LOL.

It seems like you (or Breitbart while they were spoon-feeding you what to think) skipped over the mechanism. "Tariffs are so bad for the economy that the lowered employment counteracts their inherent inflationary effects" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Trump's economic genius.

[ThePublius]

Where did that quote come from?

[John 4]

Maybe try reading the study? It’s like 20 pages excluding citations. Or maybe stop relying on Breitbart?

[jb]

The quote is my paraphrase of the article. Maybe you should read it?

[ThePublius]

I read the article and the report, too, and that sentence you put in quotes appears nowhere in either. So, you lied.

[jb]

Someone doesn't know what the word "paraphrase" means, I guess?

[ThePublius]

If you paraphrase you don't put it in quotes as if it came from the article or the paper; and you should at least indicate that it's paraphrasing, not a quote.

[John 4]

This is how a clown would behave. Do better.

[jb]

Okay, well if the edit function worked for more than five minutes I'd go back and fix my post so as to not confuse you.

Now maybe we can talk about what the paper actually says? It certainly doesn't vindicate Trump's trade policy.

[jb]

(notably it turns out The Publius is much more interested in talking about question marks than in engaging in an actual conversation about whether or not the paper "vindicates" Trump's policies)

[Malika la Maize]

“People only use quotation marks in internet discussions when they are citing directly from a source!”

[Malika la Maize]

It’s clearly a paraphrase, ya goof. And the idea that plagiarism=lying is silly.

[ThePublius]

It was presented as a quote.

[Malika la Maize]

From the context “Tariffs are so bad” it was clearly a paraphrase.

[Poxigah146]

Even if you accept that tariffs are bad overall, they're only bad if every country has a free trade policy. Not imposing your own tariffs when all of your competitors are doing it to you is idiotic.

[jb]

Why? If other countries want to make their economies less efficient, why would that make it a good idea to do it to yourself?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because you become dependent on those other countries, and that dependency is a vulnerability they will, predictably, exploit.

[Malika la Maize]

To their disadvantage. Why do you hate free markets?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't hate free markets, I wish we actually had one. We don't, and I don't care to pretend that we do.

But internationally, we can't pretend that hostile totalitarian states like China are economic rational actors. Rational people must recognize that states like China and Russia are not acting to maximize their profits, but instead to advance their leaders objectives.

[Malika la Maize]

Rational actors shouldn’t stop being rational because some others in the market are not, that’s to the latter’s detriment. If China doesn’t want to take comparative advantage that’s on them, we shouldn’t emulate that.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that rational actors take into account that other actors aren't economic rational actors, they don't mindlessly assume everybody is going to do the economically rational thing.

You might eat at the cheap deli, but if you learn the cheap deli is run by a mass murderer who is researching mycotoxins, you're not going to let the low price tempt you to eat the hamburger steak in mushroom gravy.

China isn't simply economically irrational, they're hostile. Rational people don't let themselves become dependent on people who will them ill.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you think China is selling us poisonous nuts and bolts? If they want to sell us cheap nuts and bolts but irrationally don’t want to buy from us widgets we make more efficiently then let them, what would be irrational is for us to stop buying those cheap nuts and bolts from them because they’re stupidly not buying our widgets.

Also, if you haven’t noticed, lots of not most of our tariffs are aimed at Canada, Brazil, etc., not exactly mass murderer analogous.

[Life of Brian]

Do you think China is selling us poisonous nuts and bolts?

Lordy no -- they'd never do something that unconscionable. Just inconsequential stuff like kids' toys

[Malika la Maize]

A consumer safety rationale for tariffs? It would be an interesting take from the gut the Consumer Safety Product Commission crowd.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't feel the slightest bit inclined to defend EVERYTHING Trump does.

But disentangling us from China? I'll defend that all day long, it's important enough to justify some expense getting that done.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve no interest in disentangling us from China to the extent that entanglement helps us and hurts China. I mean, are you talking about sanctions?

[David Nieporent]

Rational people don't let themselves become dependent on people who will them ill.

Rational people try to make sure that each side is dependent on the other.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You remind me of the days of John Foster Dulles, when the Soviets were ten-foot-tall midgets. Americans were required to believe that the Soviet nation was a basket case, but also a close competitor with systemic advantages which could soon enable it to surpass the U.S. Such were the purported realities of operating a nation full of enslaved people who hated their government.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's 'everything is national security' take continues to prove way way too much.

In the name of security, he'd gut our growth.

In video games, they call it turtling. It's not a very good strategy.

[jb]

That's a different argument entirely and has nothing to do with reciprocity.

In some cases there's a strategic reason to want to retain some domestic industrial capacity and tariffs may be part of the answer for that. But if so, you wouldn't care about the levels of tariffs the other country was imposing on you.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be more detailed, free market theory relies on two assumptions:

1. An actual free market.

2. Economically rational actors.

In the international economy we have neither.

[Sarcastr0]

Modern economics operates via perturbations off of the free market paradigm.

Your take would be hot around about the 1990s.

To be fair, I didn't pay a lot of attention to economics myself for a long time. But I also didn't make grand pronouncements about it.

[Malika la Maize]

Adam Smith didn’t need to suppose the existence of universal “actual” free markets to argue that more free trade was better than mercantilism. This is just you wanting to have your cake (“I’m a libertarian”) and eat it too (“I support taxes to control trade!”).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Bad news. If you long to rely on a theory which you admit is inapplicable, you are headed for trouble.

Also, given that the theory you long for seems incompatible with democracies—by which I mean none practice it—more bad news.

Maybe start over from scratch.

[David Nieporent]

Even if you accept that tariffs are bad overall, they're only bad if every country has a free trade policy. Not imposing your own tariffs when all of your competitors are doing it to you is idiotic.

False. The best situation is that no countries have tariffs. The second best is that one's own country has no tariffs.

You don't throw rocks in your own harbors because other countries have rocks in theirs.

[Malika la Maize]

Wonderful to post this when Trump is backing off them.

[John 4]

San Francisco Fed: history shows us tariffs don’t correlate to higher inflation. This is likely due to the reduction in economic activity from the increased unemployment that is correlated with tariffs.

Cultist: Trump is vindicated!

So, so dumb.

[ThePublius]

Employment is up in the last year, dummy.

[John 4]

Try to stay on topic, bud. We’re talking about the study, that you brought up, about the last 150 years of tariffs.

[ThePublius]

The original post was about an article saying the Fed study had vindicated Trump, r.e.: tariffs. In his time in office employment has increased. That's what I meant.

[jb]

So you're saying the study is wrong?

[John 4]

I don’t think he knows what he’s saying.

[dwb68]

The only correct economic conclusion is that tariffs raise prices for some goods and lower others.

Island economies (Iceland, Puerto Rico, Hawaii) are extremely expensive; they need to import almost everything. Tarrifs do not change that. The US by contrast, is not an island. We produce about 80% of what we consumes and theoretically it could be 100%.

Inflation is the general rise *of all prices simultaneously*. Tariffs only raise (or lower) inflation to the extent they are a complete pass-through **and labor costs/wages rise/fall in concert**, which they never do.

The worst thing to happen to beef/dairy/grain prices was not tariffs, it was the Ukraine war: Russia is the source of a significant fraction of the world's fertilizer. Now all that urea, potash, and phosphate is going to countries which, in turn, want to sell us cheap beef.

Tariffs have a minimal impact on home prices; land prices account for approximately 50% of the cost of a new home. Regulations that make it expensive to renovate are to blame, too. For example, if you want to buy a new high-efficiency water heater, you need a whole new (expensive) redo of the house venting system, ask me how I know.

Mostly: economists who say tariffs change inflation this direction or that have a bias for or against tariffs. Widespread tariffs do shift the supply chain, causing temporary supply constraints that may push the CPI up in the short term, until suppliers adjust. We have plenty of land, for example, to raise beef cattle. It just takes time.

The biggest impact on inflation right now is uncertainty: Suppliers cannot plan, and therefore cannot build new supply. Nobody is going to sink 10 billion into an American Aluminum smelter with electricity prices being what they are, when the plant could be worthless during the next administration.

New supply always and everywhere makes things cheaper.

[ThePublius]

"land prices account for approximately 50% of the cost of a new home"

I would quibble with that. Everything I've seen indicates land cost is in the 18 to 24% of total cost range. Of course, it's very location dependent.

[dwb68]

Land, by definition, is valuable because of its location and access to services. Land is cheap in Baltimore because the services suck. Who wants to send their kids to public school in Baltimore? The way to make land more valuable is for cities to improve services, and the best way to improve services is to jettison government monopolies on garbage collection and education.

Of course, when cities try to make land more valuable, people cry "gentrification" lol. Lets keep everyone in the neighborhood poor!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Land, by definition, is valuable because of its location and access to services.

Not where I live. Building lots are priced by size, with the smallest lots by far the most expensive per acre. Conversely, the biggest lots, up to an arbitrary size threshold, get less and less expensive per acre. The lots above the threshold are even less per acre, but assessed by different formulas.

I am curious whether others encounter that pattern. If it is not commonplace, I wonder what can be done to make it more rational where I am.

The whole thing seems driven by taxation-related assessment policies, but with the market notably responsive to the assessed values—so long as the property is developed. And with major distortions. Condos get zero land taxation. Or so it seems. If someone like an association or other is paying taxes on land under condo projects, I cannot find a record of it. Seems like the condo prices and the assessors just assume a land price price pro-rated onto the condo price. Maybe that's normal. I don't know about this stuff.

[Bunny495]

As a condo owner I (and all the other owners) pay county property taxes. There are 101 condos, some 2 bedroom town houses and some 3 bedroom flats. The county taxes are based on assessed value of the units. Owner occupied units get homestead exemption of a set amount while rental units pay the full assessed value. There is also a set amount exemption for veterans and maybe some other favored group like disabled.

As for rational taxes; what can I say.

Most zoning specifies minimum lot sizes for single unit houses as well as multiunit structures. I am a little surprised about the inverse cost per acre since multifamily units as a rule produce increased income.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, taxes don’t increase prices.

[dwb68]

Hmmm...so you are saying income taxes raise the cost of labor? I think I agree, we should lower income taxes in high-cost states and cities!

[Malika la Maize]

I agree too, because I think taxes tend to retard economic activity and efficiency. What’s odd is that you do with income taxes but not import taxes.

[dwb68]

As I said: tariffs make some things more expensive in the short run, but only to the extent they are passed through. The US only imports about 20% of what it consumes, so while the prices of imports are the most irritatingly visible, tariffs just cannot have that big an impact. Gas prices and steaks and bananas are visible, because you buy them often, but are not good indicators of overall inflation.

Inflation is the *general* rise in all prices. The link between tariffs and inflation is very weak. Food is about 8% of the average budget, transportation 15%-20%, healthcare 15-20%, and housing 40% (of course for older people on medicare healthcare could be as much as 40%).
Home prices are in large part driven by land and labor prices, which are unaffected by tariffs. Healthcare is largely driven by labor costs (~70% doctor's salaries, etc)--while pharma is the most visible to consumers, its less than 15% of the overall cost of care.

Wages, on the other hand, are a significant driver of the cost of everything, maybe as much as 2/3. Construction costs. Administrative costs. Doctors' salaries, etc. There is a direct and strong link between wages/labor costs and inflation, and there always has been. It's true, for example, that reducing the labor supply (kicking farmworkers out of the country) raises labor costs (although, this has not shown up in labor costs yet).

[Malika la Maize]

It’s all connected, if gas goes up how do you think construction workers get to the cites? When popcorn and soda go up the movie theater has to look elsewhere for the same profit. Etc.

It’s like you’re arguing that it’s ok for government to make (let’s say) 20% of things more expensive because other factors are also involved in making prices. You’re like the leftist who says “oh, higher taxes, minimum wage laws, etc., might exert some pressure to raise prices but there’s other factors are involved so so what?”

[dwb68]

No: if the prices of all imports go up 10%, the most prices rise is
.1*.2= 2%, assuming full pass though and no substitution (never true).

Tarrifs effect on inflation is small (not zero, but very very small).

If wages go up 10% prices rise .1*.67= 6.7%. And the only substitute for labor is machines.

The biggest effect on inflation: home prices and rents. If rents were cheaper in the city, the construction worker does not need to worry about gas and commuting.

Maybe everything is connected, bit that doesnt mean it all has the same effect.

"higher taxes, minimum wage laws, etc., might exert some pressure to raise prices but there’s other factors"

It depends on what those other factors are. Its hard to substitute machines for labor; on the other hand, we are a net exporter of agricultural goods and (eventually) can raise more chickens, corn, and cattle

[Malika la Maize]

I think Trump and his supporters should definitely go with “the tariffs are certainly pressuring higher prices but not as much as other things!”

[dwb68]

Tarriffs may be bad, but a persistent trade deficit and government deficit are worse. What are the alternatives? Devaluation of the dollar? Id love to hear what a better alternative is.

[Malika la Maize]

A trade deficit is comparative advantage at work. Mercantilism is not something we should get into.

[dwb68]

A persistent trade deficit is unsustainable; its exporting jobs. A twin deficit only ends with us poor where we are forced to devalue the dollar. This in fact is China's long term strategy to weaken us.

[David Nieporent]

A persistent trade deficit is unsustainable; its exporting jobs.

To steal from Pauli, that's not right; it isn't even wrong.

[Stephen Lathrop]

dwb68 — Do you insist that when foreign car manufacturers, for instance, suffer tariff increases, that does not enable domestic car manufacturers to raise their prices?

Maybe I am a domestic manufacturer of anything, and my lowest-priced competitor is an import. When a tariff makes that import more expensive, why am I even a competent manager if I do not raise my prices to make higher profits? If I raise my prices, that signals my domestic competitors to raise theirs, lest their stockholders sell those stocks and buy mine. Hence, general inflation.

More generally, our marketplace is characterized by trade organizations avid to identify occasions for collusive price increases which can be blamed on external signals, and thus not subject to regulation. Tariffs are a godsend for them.

By the way, given the skyrocketing price of beef in supermarkets, what is your explanation for why that has not been held in check by increased imports of cheaper beef from abroad?

[dwb68]

Supply expands, inventory expands past demand, and prices decline.

Manufacturers have been very good at keeping inventory lean, avoiding the boom-bust cycles.

Corn and soybeans will be sown, cattle will be raised and slaughtered, auto makers will make more cars. Supply eventually adjusts. To smelt aluminum, we need cheap power in the USA. If we build it, inflation will decline.

[jb]

There's quite good evidence that tariffs increase the price of equivalent domestic products as well. Domestic producers aren't going to keep their prices the same when suddenly the competition just got more expensive.

[dwb68]

Until supply expands and inventories build.

[Josh R]

Fed Study Vindicates Trump Trade Policy:

Why then is Trump removing tariffs on high-cost items such as coffee?

[Life of Brian]

I can't read Trump's mind, but I don't immediately understand the case for having tariffs on agricultural goods that can't be grown here. As I understand it there are nearly always exemptions, and it sounds like those are getting rebalanced and/or catching stuff that slipped through the cracks when they were instituted.

[Josh R]

Trump told us the reason for the new exemptions was lowering the price (for which the GOP paid a price in the 2025 elections). He should try applying that logic across the board.

[Life of Brian]

My point is that there is no "across the board" -- there's a different set of economic realities for imported goods that have no domestic equivalent or substitute than there is for goods that do. Most obviously, there's no competitive pressure that might incentivize the exporter and/or intermediates in the supply chain to eat some or all of the tariff. Surely that much isn't controversial.

[Josh R]

Your explanation is not irrational (but, I don't buy it). But, Trump did not make that argument. He merely said we have cut the tariffs to lower prices. Let's see him make your argument and defend all other tariffs because prices aren't an issue for the vast majority of products (with inflation at 3%).

[Life of Brian]

But, Trump did not make that argument. He merely said we have cut the tariffs to lower prices.

Not sure what exact quote you're referring to, nor am I sure why you're suddenly in this case expecting political messaging to be a full-blown economic treatise.

(with inflation at 3%)

Oh, that's the new crisis level now? How quickly we forget.

[Josh R]

Trump said it in an interview with Laura Ingraham responding to her comment that coffee prices are high:

Coffee, we're gonna lower some tariffs.

Trump is not thinking about the complexity that you raised (he never thinks about complexities).

It's not an economic crisis. It's a political fuck up by Trump. He promised to lower prices. He hasn't. Inflation has gotten a bit worse. He's now like Biden trying in vain to convince Americans he is doing a god job. And he let slip out a simple truth: tariffs, yes his tariffs, raise prices.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, so he didn't even say the words himself. That's even more of a stretch than I had suspected.

And you're doing the wishful chicken bones reading thing again. I posted the graph of inflation for the past 5 years, and it's been oscillating between 2.5 and 3% for the past couple of years. Suddenly declaring this cycle to be out of control and unacceptable is just pretending none of that history exists.

[Josh R]

Trump (himself) said he was going to lower tariffs on coffee.

I didn't say it was out of control. I said the people are pissed that prices haven't dropped as promised by Trump. And in response, Trump wants to lower some tariffs.

[Life of Brian]

Trump (himself) said he was going to lower tariffs on coffee.

And that's apparently all he said. So "Trump told us the reason for the new exemptions was lowering the price" was pretty... creative.

I said the people are pissed that prices haven't dropped as promised by Trump. And in response, Trump wants to lower some tariffs.

Do you find it even vaguely odd that the only tariffs he's lowering just happen to be ones where there isn't enough domestic competitive pressure to keep those tariffs from passing through to the shelf? If they're really such a comprehensive problem and he was really just folding in response to political pressure, he'd have done a lot more than these onesie-twosies.

It may well be that, as is often the case, reality falls in that messy middle between "ugh -- tariffs good!" and "ugh -- tariffs bad!"

[Josh R]

Trump responded to Ingraham's comment that coffee prices were high.

Again, Trump doesn't think in the complex terms you presented. He mentioned coffee because Ingraham brough it up (along with beef).

[Life of Brian]

Huh -- first time you've mentioned anything other than coffee in this entire back and forth. I suppose next time you'll tell me she also just so happened to mention spices, bananas, and other tropical fruit that doesn't grow in our climate. 'Cause there couldn't possibly be anything with targeted purpose going on here, no siree.

[Josh R]

No, she didn't mention anything else.

By all means, keep smoking the copium that Trump is a practitioner of advanced economic theory rather than having stepped in it (politically).

[Josh R]

Fed Study Vindicates Trump Trade Policy: 150 Years of Evidence Shows Tariffs Lower Inflation.

Of course they don't in the long term. They do for a short period of time after they first take effect and then (so long as they are not increased) they don't directly affect inflation.

If there were no other effects, we would end up with the same inflation rate in the long term but higher prices (the same rate applied to a higher base). But as your link says, there is a drag on the economy leading to lower GDP and inflation in the long term. Yuck.

[DDHarriman]

---
In summary…
In Epstein’s own words, the timeline, the motive, the silence, the cooperation, the arrests — everything points to one conclusion:

Donald Trump was the informant who helped take down one of the most prolific pedophile and blackmail operations in history.
---

https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1989024850170560735

The Epstein Files are "It's Meuller Time" 2.0. Ending with a doddering and blubbering fool and egg on the faces of the Democrat Fanatics.

[Malika la Maize]

Add a little QANon to your white supremacy and anti-semitism and mix vigorously!

[Michael P]

Just admit he's right instead of calling people random names!

[Malika la Maize]

So you should be Mikie Q?

[ducksalad]

Informants are typically co-conspirators seeking immunity or a deal.

But anyway isn't his line that he didn't know anything? That would be a pretty lame informant.

[David Nieporent]

Voltage!

[Poxigah146]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/14/politics/trump-colleges-california-funding-hnk

The left can always find a Biden or Obama judge to rule however they want.

[wvattorney13]

One ray of hope is that we know that the left is able to find the Tenth Amendment in their copy of the Constitution. For decades I didn't think that was possible.

[Poxigah146]

They'll find it, and then promptly lose it the moment a Democrat takes office.

They're the most disgusting, despicable, evil human beings to ever walk the Earth.

[Malika la Maize]

“They're the most disgusting, despicable, evil human beings to ever walk the Earth.”

Get a grip and touch grass.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It will be an interesting day when the right stops supposing the 10th amendment is a proclamation of secretly enumerated powers which governments, including the federal government, can wield at pleasure.

[Malika la Maize]

Now, every year on Thanksgiving, the grocery-store shelves are rife with marshmallows, ready to top many a sweet potato casserole. For some, that plush-topped Thanksgiving staple is a yearly burst of saccharine sunshine. For others, it’s a repulsion of gastronomic proportions. Why top an already sweet dish with sugary candy? To understand, it might help to look at the recipe’s creation.

In 1917, the Angelus Marshmallow company hired Janet McKenzie Hill, a prolific cookbook author, food scientist and the founder of The Boston Cooking School Magazine, to create recipes that used its marshmallows. One of those inventions was the casserole we know today: mashed DayGlo-orange sweet potatoes topped with bloomed and burnished snowy marshmallows.

https://cooking.nytimes.com/article/sweet-potato-casserole-marshmallows-thanksgiving

[ThePublius]

Again, quotation marks. Otherwise you are a plagiarist.

You give people shit about English writing skills, yet you are punctuation-impaired.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s ridiculous, every word is from the cited, clickable source, so take your pathetically partisan white knighting elsewhere.

[John 4]

I guess he got so traumatized by the paraphrasing earlier that he’s got PTSD.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie's like the Romper Room Lady, she makes "Air Quotations" with her hands and you're able to see them at home via her Magic Mirror.

[Sarcastr0]

"quotation marks. Otherwise you are a plagiarist."

What a fucking joke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. I remember a few months ago you pasted some random dude's tweet into the comment section. I was like, why is Sarcastro trying to pass some dude's tweet off as his comment.

Then I realized maybe you weren't trying to do that, but quotes would have made things clearer.

[Sarcastr0]

Setting a personal standard and then saying everyone who doesn't follow it is unethical is unhinged behavior.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Proper use of quotation marks is a personal standard?

[Mr. Bumble]

No fan of Qualika but I think you get a pass on quotation marks when you have provided a link.

[Davy C]

Not in an academic paper, for sure. You'd have to put it in quotes, otherwise it's assumed you are paraphrasing from the source rather than quoting. Blog comments might not have quite the same standards though.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It makes it harder to figure out what's going on. If I had tried to read that comment I'm sure I would have been confused for about 10 seconds, then annoyed.

[Malika la Maize]

You being confused goes without saying regardless of quotes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your lack of command of the language.

[Malika la Maize]

Plagiarism rules are rules of language?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Quotation marks are rules of the written language.

[ThePublius]

I don't care for marshmallow-topped sweet potatoes. I much prefer Bourbon sweet potatoes. I made them one year and over-did the Bourbon. People remarked that they were strong, especially the kids, but they disappeared quickly. 🙂

[Malika la Maize]

My wife makes a sweet potato soufflé kind of dish that I think is much better than the marshmallow casserole.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure it's every bit as horrible as it sounds.
The dish I mean, not your "Wife"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

It’s infinitely better than what they serve you at the shelter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still talking about the dish here, right?

[Malika la Maize]

She is quite the dish, but yes, referring to the food.

[Frank Drackman]

Is she from Miami F-L-A??

[Brett Bellmore]

We harvested our sweet potatoes a couple weeks ago, and mostly we just snack on them, steamed. Though I've found they make decent hash, and are good for thickening a stew.

[Mr. Bumble]

No fan of sweet potatoes, marshmallows or not, but I think sweet potato pie is as good or better than pumpkin pie.
As far as a side, I make a gratin of alternating slices of sweet potato and granny smith apples covered with a butter, brown sugar and maple syrup sauce.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Alcohol evaporates during cooking...

[Frank Drackman]

That's my excuse,
"I didn't drink that Fifth of Jack, it evaporated during cooking"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I made them one year and over-did the Bourbon."

When I cook with wine, the food ends up tasing pretty good.

But for some reason, when I cook with bourbon, it never comes out right. But I'm never really unhappy with it.

[ducksalad]

Try cheap brandy. Often works as a substitute for either.

[Brett Bellmore]

My parents had this recipe for a rolled roast cooked in wine that they claimed came from the Galloping Gourmet. At each step in it the recipe called for drinking some of the wine, and by the time you put it in the oven you were quite drunk.

Wouldn't mind finding that recipe, though I *think* I could recreate it. Round steak pounded thin and floured, layered with onions, olives, and bread crumbs, and then rolled and tied. Browned, and then simmered in wine. I suspect there was more to it, though.

[John F. Carr]

The Second Amendment does not protect a man who went to fetch a rifle and stood in his doorway holding it after a constable served divorce papers. Carrying a rifle while visibly angry is assault, whichever way the rifle is pointed, and there is no Second Amendment right to assault.

Commonwealth v. Howard, Mass. App. Ct. 24-P-1128, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-howard-ac-a24p1128/download

The defendant was sentenced to six months to serve and will not be allowed to have guns.

[Malika la Maize]

What a weird thing to do though.

[Davy C]

Carrying a rifle while visibly angry is assault

So if you're carrying a rifle and someone makes you visibly angry you have to immediately drop the rifle, lest you assault them? I think your statement goes too far. It was the *fetching* of the rifle, and then going to where the victim could see he had it (and even throwing the service envelope to make sure the victim looked his way) that made it assault, not just that he was carrying it while angry.

In my year as a process server I never had anyone display a gun. I had one person threaten to shoot my tires if I served him on a Sunday again, but I quit for unrelated reasons before I had another paper for him.

[ducksalad]

More cool process server stories would be welcome here.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree.

[Frank Drackman]

How about a man carrying a Rifle who recently drank Milk?

[wvattorney13]

If you take out the ridiculous assertions that there might not be any 2A to "use" a firearm, I agree with the decision.

That seems like a pretty clear case of assault to me. Nice try by his lawyer, though.

[Frank Drackman]

California nurses with doctorates do not have the right to call themselves doctors, a federal court ruled, upholding a state law that regulates what titles health professionals can use in advertisements.

In a September 19 decision, the US District Court for the Central District of California rejected claims by nurses with Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degrees that the state violated their free speech rights by banning them from using the title “Dr” in the healthcare setting.

The use of “Dr” by nonphysicians in clinical settings is “inherently misleading” commercial speech and is not protected by the First Amendment, District Judge Jesus G. Bernal wrote in his ruling.

Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Donna Matias, who represented the nurses, said the plaintiffs were disappointed that the court “failed to grapple with relevant Supreme Court precedent that protects First Amendment rights.”
“Instead of reining in the state’s power to censor professionals who accurately describe their credentials, the decision emboldens it,” Matias said in an email to Medscape Medical News. “The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence truthful speech simply because some listeners may be confused — especially when disclosure can address any concerns short of a total ban.”
The defendants in the case, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, did not return messages seeking comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Psychologists do this all the time.

[Frank Drackman]

and a certain commenter on this blog, people are saying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I blame the establishment.

Where I work, we spend a fair amount of effort ensuring that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Whoever thought a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree that carried the title of Dr was a good idea should be flogged.

[ducksalad]

Conversely, maybe MDs working at universities should be banned from calling themselves "Doctor", and for the same reason. It's misleading.

[wvattorney13]

"“The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence truthful speech simply because some listeners may be confused — especially when disclosure can address any concerns short of a total ban.”"

I think it absolutely does. It is not merely "confusing" but deliberately deceitful. In a medical setting the patient hears "doctor" and thinks the nurse is an M.D.----and that is exactly the type of confusion the nurses intend to cause by their use of the term. Consumer protection.

I have a J.D. Maybe I can walk around the hospital wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and call myself "doctor." I would be telling the truth and if people are confused, that's on them because they should be able to wade through my statements on the fly.

[Sarcastr0]

How the Swiss convinced Trump to drop tariffs with gifts of a Rolex desk clock and a 1 kg gold bar.
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/14/trump-swiss-gifts-gold-rolex

This is what having a king is like. This fucking sucks.

So do the pardons and payouts to the king's allies.
So do the King directing unsupported persecutions of his enemies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nobility in Hallmark Channel films tends to be less jerk-y.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."

Samuel was displeased and warned them of all the bad things a king would do.

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day."

The people did not care.

"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us"

And ... it got a bit messy.

[Josh R]

Remember when President Ramaphosa (South Africa) was at the White House trying to convince Trump that Afrikaners were not being persecuted by his government? He brought golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen to help make the case. That did not do the trick. Ramaphosa lamented during the meeting, "I'm sorry I don't have a plane to give you."

[Commenter_XY]

How are they treating the 153 palestinian guests that just arrived? You know, the people Rampalooza aligned with?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that Trump doesn't get to keep these gifts -- right?

And did you miss: the Swiss agreed to reduce trade barriers Trump had bristled at, and Swiss companies agreed to invest more in the U.S.

No More Uncle Sucker....

[ducksalad]

You do know that Trump doesn't get to keep these gifts -- right?

It doesn't matter whether Sarc knows. The question is whether Trump knows.

[Michael P]

They didn't miss it, they just pretend that Trump achieving his trade goals has nothing to do with him dropping the tariffs imposed to achieve those trade goals.

[Sarcastr0]

You're doing a lot of telepathy these days.

[Michael P]

Reading headlines != telepathy.

[Brett Bellmore]

In Sarcastr0's world, addition and subtraction are telepathy... Reading headlines is probably something more on the order of magic.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, he’s dropping them because of all the winning they brought!

[David Nieporent]

Getting personal bribes is his trade goals.

[Sarcastr0]

ducksalad has it right - I'm not mad Trump's getting enriched, I'm mad that treating our President like a king of old gets you bennies.

My country is acting like some spoiled princeling and it sucks.

[Paladin_44]

+1

[Commenter_XY]

Try North Korea, if you want purity.

[Sarcastr0]

What a weird thing to say. Do you know anything about North Korea?

https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-news-imports-luxury-gifts-kim-reward-officials-1970365

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I Wish You All the Best is a new movie getting good reviews. It concerns a nonbinary teen who is kicked out of the house & they then move in with their sister and her husband.

The husband is played by one of the twins who was on that Disney show & before played "Ben" on Friends. He's in his thirties now, which just shows how time goes by. The actor, though Ben would be around 30 now, too.

I checked out the novel the film was based on. It is good so far. YA fiction can sometimes be enjoyable for adults.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, thanks, I'll be sure to watch that right before I gouge my eyes out.
Want a real Tear Jerker?
"A Walk to Remember" that and "Old Yeller" and I'm done, another one I haven't seen since it was in the Theaters 1970?
"My Side of the Mountain"
Which was also a book that I didn't read (I was 7)
it's like "Broke Back Mountain" without the Back Mounting.
I won't spoil it for you, but don't watch it unless you've got plenty of Hankies.

Frank

[dwb68]

...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An order was dropped yesterday:

Order entered by Justice Sotomayor: Upon further consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant and response filed thereto, it is ordered that stay heretofore issued by Justice Sotomayor on November 5, 2025, is hereby vacated. Give the Government's representation that it will not transfer the funds outside of the United States before the disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari, the application for stay is denied.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a515.html

SCOTUSblog summarized:

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should pause enforcement of a judgment granting control of $40 million in funds from the estate of Ferdinand Marcos held in an account in New York to the Republic of the Philippines while Filipino human rights victims who won a $2 billion judgment against the estate appeal the judgment

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/duran-v-united-states-2/

[The "Give" typo isn't on the version found on the orders page.]

The order provides a brief explanation. I'm not sure how helpful it is in the context of the dispute. But I do find it useful that an explanation is provided.

[Michael P]

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/11/14/judge-democrat-lamonica-mciver-must-stand-trial-for-assaulting-federal-agents-at-ice-facility/

A federal judge ruled Thursday that New Jersey Democrat Representative LaMonica McIver must face trial for assaulting a federal law enforcement officer outside an immigration detention facility in Newark.

Some people here will pretend to be outraged that the Trump administration will prosecute politicians who break the law.

[Sarcastr0]

You'd think after the sandwich guy clownshow you might learn a lesson about this DoJ.

But that assumes you have any shame.

Come to think of it, have you ever retracted or apologized for anything on this here blog?

[Commenter_XY]

She'll do the daily perp walk to court for the trial. In public. The humiliation of that alone is enough (for now).

[Sarcastr0]

Getting off on other people's humiliation isn't a healthy fetish.

[David Nieporent]

Also, he's using the phrase "perp walk" incorrectly.

[Malika la Maize]

“the Trump administration will prosecute politicians who break the law.”

Well, unless they have an R beside their name, then they get pardons!

[Kenneth Almquist]

I’m not surprised that Michael P follows the trial on breitbart than to read the court filings.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70514976/united-states-v-mciver/

I’m also not surprised that he describes this case as a prosecution by the Trump Administration, because these days a large portion of the right doesn’t bother to pretend that Trump isn’t engaging in political prosecutions.

[O Tempora]

Assume that in the future Dems capture both houses of Congress and the White House, eliminate the filibuster, and add three seats to the Supreme Court which are then filled by liberal justices.. Can this be undone? If a future all-GOP government were to reduce the size of the Court are all sitting justices protected by life tenure so that only by attrition can the number of justices actually be reduced? Is the only GOP response to further increase the size of the Court and fill all of the new seats with conservative justices? Likewise, what if the Dems admit PR as a new state. Can this be undone, or will the GOP have to locate some reliably conservative territory (Alberta?) to restore the balance?

[Brett Bellmore]

They wouldn't add 3, they'd add at least 4, maybe 6.

3 would just bring a 3-6 Court to 6-6, after all. They're not looking for ties, they're looking for wins.
4 would only have them winning 7-6 if they had no defections at all.
5 would probably result in a lot of ties, just like 3 would.
6, they'd win even with 1 defection.

[Randal]

I think we'd add zero. We're not that stupid. (What we probably would do is impeach CJ Thomas.)

If we did add any, we'd add two. The justification would be the illegitimate appointment of Gorsuch. So one justice to cancel Gorsuch, and one justice to represent Garland, who should've had the spot. Resulting in a still conservative, but much better balanced, 6-5 court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I can see splitting the Court into two divisions, with 9 justices apiece. Leave the existing Court untouched as one division, add the other division with a similar mix of justices, but reverse the partisan polarity, and voila, twice as much Court processing power, which is much needed. And the current partisan corruption crisis at least gets balanced, and maybe balanced out of existence. Make case assignments random, of course.

That would be a reset which would not require a tit-for-tat retaliation, because if the Rs got enough power to do anything retaliatory, they could instead use it to once again gain Court power by replacing retiring liberals with their preferred more-conservative candidates. The frequency of liberal retirements would have increased. By political happenstance, the process could work the other way, too.

In short, a more graceful way out of the current crisis than other possibilities suggest. And Court capacity better suited to keep ahead of an ever-increasing workload.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the current partisan corruption crisis" = "The other party has too many Supreme Court seats!"

[Michael P]

*notes "O Tempura (o' Morays)" as a good screen name.

[Armchair]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a member of Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s office misrepresented himself as the attorney of a detained illegal immigrant to facilitate their release.

According to a letter sent Wednesday to Duckworth, D-Ill., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons said the staffer told federal agents he was the attorney of Jose Ismeal Ayuzo Sandoval — a 40-year-old illegal immigrant previously deported four times to Mexico and who had a DUI conviction.

The letter says the staffer entered an ICE facility in St. Louis, Illinois, on Oct. 29.

"At approximately 1:29 p.m., an individual identified as Edward York, who according to publicly available information, is employed as a Constituent Outreach Coordinator for your Senate office, entered the field office lobby, and in a discussion with a federal officer, claimed to be Mr. Ayuzo’s attorney. Mr. York demanded to speak with his ‘client,’" the letter states.

"This staff member allegedly did so to gain access to the detainee and seek his release from custody, and he accomplished it by falsifying an official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) form."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/duckworth-staffer-accused-posing-lawyer-attempt-free-illegal-immigrant-from-ice-custody

Lying about being a lawyer....falsifying federal forms...

[wvattorney13]

1. But Trump tells worse lies!

2. Because being in the country illegally is a civil offense there is no criminal violation to falsify a government form.

3. This is a politically motivated prosecution.

4. DHS has no authority to have prison forms in a domestic prison.

5. Epstein!

[ducksalad]

6. We don't know who is lying. Democratic congressmen and their staff cannot be trusted, there are plenty of documented cases of them lying. ICE officers and officials cannot be trusted, there are plenty of documented cases of them lying.

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. But the question is whether there are any documented cases of Trump's DHS telling the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because being in the country illegally is a civil offense there is no criminal violation to falsify a government form."

I don't think it actually works that way. Perhaps you could discuss it with Marsha Stewart?

[Mr. Bumble]

Martha.

[Bunny495]

"2. Because being in the country illegally is a civil offense there is no criminal violation to falsify a government form."

Illegal Re-entry is a Felony: While an initial entry without authorization may sometimes be charged as a misdemeanor (8 U.S.C. § 1325), illegal re-entry after a prior deportation is typically prosecuted as a felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Second bite of the apple you can bend over and take it in the ass with no lube.

[David Nieporent]

illegal re-entry after a prior deportation is typically prosecuted as a felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Typically… unless the Trump administration needs you to lie about one of their enemies.

[Bwaaah]

Be as lazy as you can, if you can, and if you so choose.

But if you're not increasing your ability to produce, not necessarily what you want but necessarily what other(s) want, then come the next "big" storm, you're fittin' to find yourself among the needing waiting.

(That's what qualifies a storm as "big." It kicks people's asses. To explain so many obvious lapses in judgement, they call it a "perfect storm," as if it weren't just the next one people denyingly waived away. It's a lousy bet. The needing waiting.)

[Michael P]

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-11-big-sex-differences-diet-insulin.html

This study was in rats, so we might see different effects in humans. But if we see the same kinds of sex differences in humans, would the pro-transgender people here view this as one way to identify "real" trans (wo)men?