Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

To repeat a comment that I made yesterday, this portends ill: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russian-tanker-tries-to-run-away-as-u-s-navy-destroyer-blocks-path-to-venezuela/ar-AA1R3FEc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6924bf9d7ebf4332be93f921664c4476&ei=17

Why on earth does Donald Trump not man up and ask Congress to declare war on Venezuela?

[John Mosby]

We can't declare war on VZ, because we don't recognize the Maduro regime as the legitimate government. This de-recognition was done by the Biden admin, btw.

War is a relationship between states. If you don't recognize the guy you're fighting as the leader of his state, you can't be at war with him.

Now should Trump ask congress for an AUMF? Maybe.

Not a pedantic distinction, although there are schools of thought that want to make it one so they can do full lawfare on us.

[Drewski]

Quite literal nonsense. It's like you asked the nearest child to make up an answer.

[loki13]

It's almost (ALMOST) impressive how you not only have the stringing together of absolute argle-bargle that is paraded as a legitimate argument, but somehow the posted also managed to make the argle-bargle somehow:

1. Blame the prior administration (this was a Biden administration policy .... uh huh).

2. End it with a deep conspiratorial wink (how there are "schools of thought" .... the slightly more verbose equivalent of "some people say" .... that "they" will use this tactic to do "full lawfare" on "us."

It's impressive in both its meaningless and also its deeply weird adherence to far-right tropes.

Why not just say, "Trump said he would keep us out of wars. But I'm totally on board with blowing up brown people in the Caribbean on false pretences in order to go to war with Venezuela. Why Venezuela? I mean ... why do we always go to war? Oil, duh. I'm sure it will be cool."

That is what is happening, and yet somehow people have trouble just saying it. Wonder why.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

War is a relationship between states. If you don't recognize the guy you're fighting as the leader of his state, you can't be at war with him.

If war is a relationship between "states," why do you shift to being at war with a person?

[OpinionsVary]

If the US President has the sole power to recognise/not recognise a country's leader under the the 'receive Ambassadors' clause and Congress's war making power only applies on a country with an acknowledged leader, doesn't that imply (under your argument) that the US president has the unilateral power to declare I-can't-believe-it's-not-war against any country in the world just by first de recognising its leader?

[Michael Resanovic]

Statutes can recognize foreign govts. and otherwise control the conduct of foreign affairs. The president would be a king if they could not. Now, it is POTUS that actually executes these requirements, but he is subject to the law, even as Congress, through the prescribed process (which intentionally involves POTUS) can control the law.

[Armchair]

To repeat the response yesterday...

So, are you pro-Russia now? Sanctions, Russian tankers, eh... not important, right?

If the US Navy is turning away a Russian tanker that is evading sanctions, then...

[not guilty]

Of course I am not pro-Russia. This, however, was not an action against Russia; it was an act of war against Venezuela, against whom Congress has not authorized military action.

I surmise that if it weren't for red herrings, Armchair, you would have no herrings at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not an action against Russia"

The warship turned away a Russian tanker as enforcement of our sanctions against Russia,

A blockade against Venezuela would be an act of war but we have not imposed such a blockade. A single intercept is not a blockade.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"The warship turned away a Russian tanker as enforcement of our sanctions against Russia,"

Is this just an example of typical sanctions enforcement or is this event extraordinary?

Is our navy performing similar interdictions elsewhere on a routine basis?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Is our navy performing similar interdictions elsewhere on a routine basis?"
If it isn't. it should be or sanctions mean nothing.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Thank you for not answering the question.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, there are 'routine' interdictions in the Yemen area by the USN.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is our navy performing similar interdictions elsewhere on a routine basis?"

IDK First I heard of one.

We have a significant naval presence in the area right now. So it got picked up.

[Armchair]

Indeed.

If a single intercepted ship in international waters was an act of war for the country it was heading to, well...that would be many, many acts of war.

[not guilty]

Politico is reporting that the Pentagon on Monday announced it is investigating Sen. Mark Kelly, a critic of President Donald Trump and Navy veteran, after he and fellow Democrats advised troops not to follow illegal orders.

The Pentagon, in a post on X, said it had launched “a thorough review” into Kelly for “serious allegations of misconduct,” which could result in recalling the Arizona senator to active duty to court-martial him. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/24/pentagon-to-investigate-sen-mark-kelly-for-anti-trump-video-00666894

The Washington Post reports:

“Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a social media post on Monday, responding to the Pentagon’s initial statement announcing the probe.

Hegseth said Kelly is the only lawmaker of the six who falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and thus is the only one being investigated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/24/mark-kelly-pentagon-investigation-misconduct-free-speech/

Neither Pete Hegseth nor Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump is fit to shine Mark Kelly's boots.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure Mark Kelly has lots of boots for you to lick.

[Sarcastr0]

With this admin, I'll need to see more than an announcement to see if this is actually going anywhere.

[DDHarriman]

Right, they've done fuck-all to hold Democrat traitors, Democrat terrorists, and Democrat criminals accountable.

[John Mosby]

Kelly is a Gulf War combat pilot, true. And he did a lot of peacetime dangerous stuff as a test pilot and astronaut.

Hegseth is a GWOT combat infantry officer. And he gave up a broadcasting career to subject himself to the left's wrath as SECDEF.

Trump gets back on stages over and over again after being shot off one.

So I think they can all shine each others' boots. Maybe have a nice GI party where they get in a circle and do them all in an assembly line: strip, polish, buff.

[John Mosby]

Also, we decided a long time ago that we don't really care about politicians' military service, in either party (Army filmmaker Reagan, draft dodger Clinton, reservist W, too-young-to-fight Obama, draft dodgers Trump and Biden). So the proper response to anyone claiming their DD 214 makes them an unquestionable oracle is "what have you done for me lately?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, who responded to 9-11?

Mass Air National Guard. Not the Active USAF.

All during the Cold War, flying obsolete aircraft, it was state ANG units who were on 24-7 alert to respond to intrusions into the Air Defense Identification Zone -- and who went up and challenged the Soviets.

This was closer to combat than the Gulf War Turkey Shoot.

I'm no fan of W, but his service was honorable.

[John Mosby]

DrEd: agree on the honorable service of the Air Guard. However, I've never read of W personally engaging in any of that. Luck of the draw. Just like Reagan never put his cavalry sabers to use and mounted up to repel Japanese landings on the California mainland, although he certainly could and would have if the need arose. My larger point is we have rejected "real" combat veterans - Jerry Ford who fought from a burning ship, Bob Dole who nearly bled out in the Dolomites, even Algore who at least set foot in Vietnam - because we disagreed with their policies. Not to mention hundreds of combat veterans who never even made it that far up the political ladder. For better or worse, we don't seem to think it makes you a better civic leader anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, he volunteered to go to Vietnam when they sent the F-102s there but didn't have enough hours to qualify.

The later issues involve the F-102 being retired and what happens to pilots whose aircraft has been retired. The USAF didn't want to train him to fly a different aircraft unless he was going to be around long enough for them to get their expense back, so they really didn't have much for him to do as he "ran out the clock."

They really didn't want to pay to train him when they had perfectly good guys coming off active duty with combat experience in the new plane, and Bush (who had opportunities in the oil business) did the decent thing and gave up his "slot" to a guy coming off Active who NEEDED the Guard "slot." Needed it for retirement credit if not the pay and benefits.

Remember that when the military is shrinking -- as it was in both the early '70s and early '90s -- *someone* has to leave. So when Bush left, he kept a seat for someone else.

[Malika la Maize]

“And he gave up a broadcasting career to subject himself to the left's wrath as SECDEF.”

Given this administration’s crony capitalism I think he’ll end up ok. Though I admit the added focus might make his drinking and womanizing more difficult to conceal.

[DDHarriman]

Woah, good point. This is the first administration to make themselves all rich!!!

Before now, no politician or elected officials in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY EVER got rich off their office. NONE. All of these rich ass Congressmen were BROKE AS SHIT until TRUMP!!!!

It's ONLY because of TRUMP that the counties surrounding DC are the richest counties in America. FUCK YOU TRUMP MAKING ALL THE FEDERAL WORKERS RICH AS SHIT!!!! JUST FUCK YOU!!!

[Incunabulum]

But don't ask how a community organizer could afford a plantation in Martha's Vineyard.

[loki13]

Do you actually want to know?

The property was purchased in 2020 (a few years after he left office) for just under $12 million dollars.

We know how he made his money from 2005-2016, because ... and I know that this is a quaint idea in the Trump era ... he publicly disclosed his tax returns and completed forms disclosing, e.g., book royalties (financial disclosures). Not to mention his family (like Michelle) abided by conflict of interest rules (she left several BoD positions ... that paid money).

Of course, since leaving office, he commands $400k (and his wife $200k) in fees for speaking engagements.

The Obamas also signed a book deal in 2017 reported worth $65 million, and there is the Netflix deal and others.

Again, the sheer stupidity of people that make accusations here is always astounding. No one doubts that a person will make money after being President- because ex-Presidents are in demand for all sorts of reasons. It's just .... well, usually we don't much like people selling pardons, or advancing their own business interests while they are President.

Anyway, I doubt actual information will help, if you are the type of person who looks at the corruption of this administration and your best rejoinder is, quite literally, "How did the Obamas afford a place on Martha's Vineyard four years after they left the White House??!!!????" It would have been better if you just said, "Obama was a chump, disclosing his taxes and finances for us to go through, and he didn't even get a 747 or business deals in the Saudi Arabia out of it!"

But you do you.

[Zarniwoop]

My first job when I was in high school was "bag boy at local grocery store". Many years later, there was law school, Federal clerkship, and an AmLaw 100 job for a while.

When I buy a house these days, no one asks "how can a bag boy afford to buy a house?"

Because that would be seriously dumb.

[Armchair]

Mutiny is a serious crime.

(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/894

[Armchair]

§2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States-

[Michael P]

Does § 2388 not apply? I don't think we ever formally called off our involvement in the Korean War.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did we ever end the GWOT?

[Absaroka]

Saying 'obey the law' is not telling people to break the law.

That's true even for the special case of 'obey the law' that is 'don't break the law even if your boss tells you to'.

[John Mosby]

Yes, my radar detector and my speed camera app just remind me to obey the law. Not to mention the guys blinking their headlights when they see the trooper behind the billboard.

[Armchair]

Context is important.

Just saying "obey the law, don't follow illegal orders"...and nothing else. Sure.

Saying "obey the law, don't follow illegal orders" and "Oh, and I believe President Trump is an illegitimate president and all his orders are illegal." And then doing it as a member of the armed forces?.... Well, now you're implictly calling for insubordination, if not mutiny.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'Saying "obey the law, don't follow illegal orders" and "Oh, and I believe President Trump is an illegitimate president and all his orders are illegal." '

And exactly who is it that you are quoting (or paraphrasing)?

[JohnSmith97]

It is amazing (but unsurprising) to watch the same group of people who find racist, sexist, fascist "dogwhistles" every time an (R) says anything.. Are completely unable to find any other message in the (D) led sedition video.

[David Nieporent]

Even if this weren't the exact opposite of what the Democratic officials had done, it would not be constitutional as applied to their actions. (It was drafted before Brandenburg.) While urging a specific person to defy orders might be punishable, general advocacy is not.

[Armchair]

"general advocacy is not."

You seriously believe that under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice "general advocacy" to "defy orders" isn't illegal?

You're a crap lawyer if you believe that.

[Sarcastr0]

They call this an appeal to incredulity.

If it's so obvious, find an example. Or an opinion. Or something that agrees with what you've come in so hot with.

[not guilty]

Armchair, in what manner, if at all, do you claim that Senator Kelly violated 18 U.S.C. § 2387? He and his Congressional colleagues urged members of the armed forces to honor their oath by reminding them of their well-established duty to disobey unlawful orders. The adjective "unlawful" is the linchpin there.

Based on what facts do you impute any "intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States" from urging service members to carry out their sworn duty?

And as for the actus reus, what specific conduct by Sen. Kelly do you claim advised, counseled, urged, or in any manner caused or attempted to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any service member?

The words spoken on the video by Sen. Kelly verbatim are:

I'm Senator Mark Kelly.

I was a captain in the United States Navy.

We want to speak directly to members of the military.

This administration is pitting our uniformed military

Like us, you all swore an oath

Our laws are clear -- you can refuse illegal orders.

And it's a difficult time to be a public servant.

Your vigilance is critical.

And who we are as Americans. Don't give up

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/93iyxmzl82I

Not a single word -- indeed, not even a single syllable there -- advocates any breach of duty by any service member.

[wvattorney13]

I agree that the charge of mutiny is wildly inappropriate.

However the assertion that they are merely and innocently advising personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders is similarly farcical. Words have meanings and implications in context. These parties are giving the strong impression that Trump is issuing such orders and that personnel should be disobeying some of them.

[Magister]

I remember being assured that Trump saying "fight" or "fighting" a score of times in his January 6th speech meant nothing at all. But now words have meanings and implications in context.

[Joe_dallas]

WV - everyone agrees that it is soldiers duty to disobey unlawful orders and everyone agrees that the individuals have the right to announce that soldiers should not obey unlawful orders.
Your are also correct that the intended meaning is to imply that Trump is issuing unlawful orders. wink wink nod nod,

[Zarniwoop]

However the assertion that they are merely and innocently advising personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders is similarly farcical. Words have meanings and implications in context.

(emphasis added) Can you please elaborate on the "words have meanings" part? Because Sen. Kelly said:

"Our laws are clear -- you can refuse illegal orders."

(emphasis added) Not:

"Our laws are clear -- you have a duty to refuse illegal orders."

Why did you feel a need to misrepresent Sen. Kelly's actual words, then argue "words have meaning"?

[Drewski]

"These parties are giving the strong impression that Trump is issuing such orders and that personnel should be disobeying some of them."

This is true. It does imply this thing which is itself true, yes. It is also true that it is innocently advising personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders. All of these things are true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This administration is pitting our uniformed military"

[LawTalkingGuy]

lol. Mutiny. Imagine posting on a legal blog for years and think posting a statute settles anything.

[SRG2]

And one which none of the Democrats accused of it have committed, obviously.

The issue is simple - the mindreading cultists think that when someone says, "don't obey any illegal orders from Trump". they mean, and should be understood to mean, "don't obey any orders from Trump".

[Jjh_Esq]

I can’t wait until Trump posts that he doesn’t need to follow illegal orders of federal district courts.

Watching all the left freak out about how dangerous that rhetoric is—right after telling us the opposite about Senator Kelly saying the same—would be hilarious!

[OpinionsVary]

Just because court orders and military orders use the same word 'order', doesn't mean they are the same thing. They are legally and constitutionally different. Trying to conflate them is either ignorance or dishonesty.

[David Nieporent]

The issue is simple - the mindreading cultists think that when someone says, "don't obey any illegal orders from Trump". they mean, and should be understood to mean, "don't obey any orders from Trump".

You know, if MAGA can't tell the difference between "legal" and "illegal" — maybe they think it's like flammable and inflammable? — it would explain a lot about the past 9 years.

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for that banal observation. Who has refused to obey an order?

[Mr. Bumble]

So I guess that all of the orders to date have been legal orders.

[windycityattorney]

There was reporting on this. There was an OLC opinion that says the boat strikes [to use an example] are legal. They won't disclose the underlying memo but apparently its this circle-jerk rationale that a) Sec of State designated cartels foreign terrorists and b) someone else in the cabinet declared those terrorists to be in active hostilities against the US c) however, the military hostilities/lethal kinetic strikes don't rise to the level of needing Congressional approval because the drone strikes don't put any service members at actual risk and despite all that d) we are acting in self-defense.

This is prolly why there are legitimate questions about the legality/legal rationale of blowing up civilian non combatants. It's also potentially why the Southcom commander retired early into his assignment.

[gregoryjp]

If Trump hears "don't comply with illegal orders" and interprets it as a blanket exhortation not to comply with any of his orders, he obviously hasn't even convinced himself that all of his orders have been legal.

[windycityattorney]

Indeed. There is also the issue of expanding the 'designated foreign terrorist organization' consequences from economic sanctions and other measures to 'lethal drone strike.'

Regardless of the questionable legality; nobody can dispute that blowing up foreign civilian non combatants suspected of merely criminal activity (drug trafficking) IS a new paradigm. And it raises several questions: If the US could simply just blow up suspected drug boats, why didn't they do that during the last 50years of the war on drugs? What changed? Why do other countries see this escalation as problematic - to the point of stopping intelligence sharing as they don't want to be complicit in the activity?

How can you act in self defense when blowing up presumably unarmed narco-traffickers far from the US mainland BUT at the same time state that you don't have to get congressional approval for the military strikes because the lethal strikes don't put any soldiers at risk?? It's counter-intuitive to say the least.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I can’t wait until military judges and prosecutors are accused of being leftist traitors for essentially proving Kelly’s point by balking at this. Best Hegseth can hope for is a bullshit “investigation” is never mentioned again. Actually trying to recall him and take him to court on this will make Halligan look like a legal genius. It’s going to crash and burn so hard.

[Zarniwoop]

Then there’s the Incompatibility Clause (Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 2). The precedents are apparently not 100% clear, but the operative question is whether a sitting member of Congress can even *be* recalled to active duty from “retired” status.

[David Nieporent]

That occurred to me yesterday, but I was working on a summary judgment motion and didn't have time to take a dive into that rabbit hole.

[not guilty]

I haven't done a deep dive, but it would seem that for the executive branch to effectively disqualify a member of Congress during his term of office would pose huge separation of powers problems.

In any event, expulsion would require concurrence of two thirds of the Senate per Article I, § 5.

[Mr. Bumble]

So many separation of powers questions lately.
Honest question.
Does a judge being able to appoint a US attorney violate separation of powers?

[Zarniwoop]

Yep. Hyuuuge structural problem if the Prez can unilaterally yoink any "retired military officer" from Congress by "recalling them to active duty".

And that's without even getting into "recalled to active duty because they exercised free speech rights".

I have a hard time imaging that even Thomas or Alito would go for something that ridonkulous. Who has more retired military officers in Congress, anyways? Is that a precedent anyone wants to set? Could Prez AOC do the same in a few years?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Auchincloss (D-MA) is in the IRR -- in theory he can be called up.

He is not "retired."

[Krayt]

I would think there's all kinds of stuff getting in the way, like not being questioned in any other place, supremacy of being there for a vote, and so on.

On the other hand, lots of motivated reasoning the past few years on how nobody's above the law, etc.

My own thoughts: where's the bowl of popcorn?

[Zarniwoop]

I'm not terribly worried that Kelly is in trouble. This is to lather up the rubes. Based on the indignant responses of the usual suspects around here, it's working according to plan.

Not too big a bag of popcorn. This will end with a whimper, not a bang.

[not guilty]

I don't think that the Speech or Debate clause is implicated here for content not occurring "in either House".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Zarniwoop -- that would mean that Members of Congress can't be in the Reserves -- I'm thinking of two MA Congressmen who are in the Marine Reserves (Moulton and Auchincloss) -- there's got to be more....

This became a real issue during the early days of WWII when a lot of people got called up and went -- until someone (FDR?) insisted that they resign and remain in DC in Congress.

[Riva]

Not sure I understand Not Guilty. Are you claiming that the disgrace Kelly could not be subject to the UCMJ or that encouraging soldiers to ignore orders is just fine under the UCMJ? I note none of these seditious pieces of shit has identified any illegal orders. That this senatorial refuse may disagree with administration policy is NOT a valid reason for the military to disobey orders. As noted by the Pentagon:

All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

[windycityattorney]

Name one thing that Kelly said that is incompatible with 'service members are reminded they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey *lawful* orders.'

Does the UCMJ or any treatises or cases interpreting it have anything to say about obeying unlawful orders? Perhaps even using examples of murdering non combatant civilians as an example of the type of unlwaful order a service member should question? HMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Riva]

There are NO illegal orders. The piece of shit is, at the very least, suborning mutiny. The fucker should be recalled to service and courtmartialed.

[Sarcastr0]

What a childish tantrum. No arguments, just assertions and accusations.

[Riva]

Gaslighting bullshit doesn't actually work within the same comment section, just so you know little communist girl that never smiled. As noted, repeatedly, there are NO unlawful orders. These seditious pieces of shit are trying to undermined the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command. The military cannot function if soldiers adopt the resistance tactics advocated by these fuckers in the senate, and these fuckers are quite aware of that fact. Kelly can and should be recalled to service and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

[LurkerBurnerAccount]

When you say "there are NO unlawful orders", do you mean that

a) Trump has not, to-date, issued any unlawful orders

or

b) that an order cannot, even in principle, be unlawful

?

[Riva]

Is this the new game? Pretending to be dense? These seditious pieces of shit did not make this video in response to any unlawful orders. The fuckers want to disrupt the Trump administration by disrupting/undermining the legal chain of command. The military cannot function under their resistance tactics. But those fuckers fully understood this, even if you pretend not to.

[LurkerBurnerAccount]

No, I'm not being dense. I understand that it's your opinion that they are trying to undermine Trump's authority as commander-in-chief.

But I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say there are no unlawful orders. Is your answer to my question a) or b)?

EDIT: Allow me to amend a) to

a) A president can, in principle, issue unlawful orders, but Trump has not, to-date, issued any unlawful orders.

[ducksalad]

It's pointless, Lurk. Until he calms down he's not going to be able to understand the question.

[Riva]

My argument is clear. These fuckers are trying to disrupt the chain of command. The military cannot function under their resistance tactics. Either make a counter argument or go the fuck away. I actually doubt you can, which is why you keep playing this fucking stupid game.

[LurkerBurnerAccount]

It's not a game, it's a simple question, and the fact that you won't just answer it is curious.

And it's pertinent because if you accept option a), then one can argue that the Senators in question were not trying to undermine legitimate Presidential authority, but were rather trying to preemptively bolster checks already in place in the event that Trump tries to exercise illegitimate authority by issuing an unlawful order at some point in the future. I think these Senator are sincerely worried he may do so, and I don't think that's an unfounded concern.

There is an alternative interpretation, which you clearly subscribe to, that they were trying to undermine legitimate Presidential authority. That's fine. I disagree, but I can see how you might come to that conclusion.

Of course, if you agree with my option b) then I guess you think any exercise of Presidential authority over the military is legitimate, the laws be damned. But that's dangerous and un-American.

[Riva]

Again, there is NO illegal order. If there was, then there may be cause to speak out. But there significantly is not. And what these seditious fuckers are trying to do is sow seeds of doubt with the hopes of encouraging mass insubordination with their false insinuations of something illegal, clothing their message with authority given their experience and status. Somewhere, sometime some soldier will disobey an order for political reasons and people will die as a result. Because of these loathsome fucks. Kelly should be courtmartialed. And there should be further scrutiny to find out who’s underwriting this seditious bullshit as well.

[windycityattorney]

Hi Riva. I see you responded but you didn't actually answer my question.

"Name one thing that Kelly said that is incompatible with 'service members are reminded they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders."

Did he tell service members to disobey lawful orders? What did he say that contradicts the quote above? He made a video (with other congress members) and also was on cable news Sunday regarding the same topic. There are two sources for you. Please answer the question.

[Riva]

How many times must I make the same argument in this comment section? One more time. As noted, repeatedly, there are NO unlawful orders. These seditious pieces of shit are trying to undermined the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command. The military cannot function if soldiers adopt the resistance tactics advocated by these fuckers in the senate, and these fuckers are quite aware of that fact. Kelly can and should be recalled to service and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

Please volunteer your services to defend Kelly.

[windycityattorney]

I see that you cannot answer my very simple question with a quote from Senator Kelly. But yet you have declared him guilty of sedition.

I read elsewhere the vaunted FBI under legal luminaries Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are on the case!! I am sure they will do just as good as you at digging up the seditious comment(s) that advised service members to disobey 'lawful' orders. Since it was aired and shared publicly this ought to be a cakewalk for them.

SEE YOU IN VALHALLA RIVA! (Kash joke)

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Also note that the ditz still hasn't made an actual argument; unless begging the question is now considered to be an argument.

[Riva]

Save your bullshit gaslighting bullshit for something else. You don't like my argument, fine. Refute it or just go the fuck away.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

What argument would that be, Ditz?

[Riva]

Well shithead, I should say see above. But let's play this game one last time. These seditious pieces of shit are trying to undermine the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command. The military cannot function if soldiers adopt the resistance tactics advocated by these fuckers in the senate. Orders are presumed to be legal. The effective process of the chain of command depends on this. These pieces are shit are trying to undermine that process by instigating a political resistance. Kelly can and should be recalled to service and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

Now fuck off. I'm tired of this bullshit.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Well, you stupid bell-ended fool, you are not making an argument, you are making stupid declarations. You are starting with " these seditious pieces of shit are trying to undermine the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command," which is exactly what you are trying to prove. What part of "begging the question" escapes the grasp of your feeble little mind, or programming as the case may be.

[Riva]

Let’s put it another way shithead. These fuckers are not furthering military discipline and respect for the chain of command with their false insinuations of something illegal that is vague and undefined in their creepy, repetitive seditious message. They’re sowing seeds of doubt and encouraging insubordination. It’s actually an old communist tactic.

[Riva]

I see that you cannot understand my very simple response. And the piece of shit Kelly and his fellow seditious pieces of shit have provided their quotes in their joint video. And, I note yet again, for that video he has earned himself a recall into active service and a court-martial for suborning mutiny under the UCMJ.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"he has earned himself a recall into active service and a court-martial for suborning mutiny under the UCMJ."

No he has not. He will not be recalled to active service and he will not be subjected to a court martial no matter how much the notion excites you.

[Riva]

One can hope there will be some accountability but it is true that justice is not always done.

[not guilty]

"There are NO illegal orders."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Riva?

https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Riva]

None of these senators are claiming there were any illegal orders in those missions. But it's more than obvious the seditious pieces of shit would love to see a mutiny to disrupt operations. Kelly, or any member of the military that is stupid enough to follow his advice, can produce the justsecurity.org article in their courtmartial. Good luck to them.

[Lee Moore]

I don't think it makes much sense to attempt to discipline Kelly for saying that soldiers don't have to obey illegal orders, but I'm more interested in whether Kelly et al are giving the troops sound, or reckless, legal advice.

We tangentially visited this subject, a while back :

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/23/a-monstrous-misunderstanding-of-martin-v-mott-why-the-supreme-court-should-stay-its-hand-rather-than-judge-perrys-temporary-restraining-order/?comments=true#comment-11255065

Justice Spencer : It is a general and sound principle, that whenever the law vests any person with a power to do an act, and constitutes him a judge of the evidence on which the act may be done, and, at the same time, contemplates that the act is to be carried into effect, through the instrumentality of agents, the person thus clothed with power is invested with discretion, and is, quoad hoc, a judge. His mandates to his legal agents, on his declaring the event to have happened, will be a protection to those agents; and it is not their duty or business to investigate the facts thus referred to their superior, and to rejudge his determination.

The impression I get is that if you're in the armed forces and you get an order, you would be wise to disobey it if it is manifestly illegal. But otherwise - ie if you think that maybe the order could be illegal, or if you are unsure of the facts that your commanders are basing their orders on - it would be very unwise to disobey it.

The general principle enunciated by Justice Spencer and repeated by Justice Story would seem to give a member of the armed forces ample cover for obeying an order that turns out to be illegal, so long as its illegality was not manifest at the time. As - to take the example of attacking Venezuelan boats - it is very unlikely to be manifest either as to the relevant law or facts. Complaints in the Senate, or even in the columns of the NYT, are hardly going to rise to the level of manifestness required.

Sure, if you're ordered to go into the House and shoot twenty named Congresscritturs, you'd be wise to decline. But otherwise if you start disobeying orders in any real world situation, you're on a hiding to nothing.

I should have thought.

[Absaroka]

I think you have it right. It's not just a military thing - I think in most states you are required to follow *lawful* instructions from police. If an officer tells you to move your car out of the way of an ambulance, it's a crime to say 'nah, it's a public street, Ima just gonna set here'. OTOH you don't get legal cover for obeying an unlawful order. If the order is 'go strangle that infant', you obey at your peril. We all face this dilemma in company with service members.

And I agree that, in or out of the military, as a practical matter the tie goes to the folks in charge: in a grey area you are less likely to get in trouble for obeying than disobeying.

But threatening capital punishment for saying 'don't obey unlawful orders' is just beyond the pale.

[Sarcastr0]

I liked this summary yesterday:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/24/open-thread-24/?comments=true#comment-11292808

Orders fall into three categories.

1. Legal. Legal orders must be obeyed if possible.
2. Not legal but not obviously illegal. Disobedience is not punished. Crimes resulting from obedience are excused.
3. Obviously not legal. Obedience to such an order does not excuse commission of crimes. Obedience to such an order is not a crime by itself. If I, a civilian, order a solider to pick up trash he may choose to obey despite my lack of authority to give the order.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not a really useful breakdown.

For instance, what is typically meant by an "unlawful order" in the current context isn't an order from somebody who has no authority to issue orders, but instead one which commands the commission of a crime.

So, we really want a grid.
L-R, Authority vs no authority to issue.
T-B, Act would be legal vs illegal to commit.

In the upper left corner we have the unproblematic combination of authority to issue, and the act is lawful. In the bottom right corner, we have the unproblematic combination of no authority to issue and the act isn't legal to do anyway. Do whatever you want, you're safe. Bottom left, must disobey, but you're at no legal risk if you're wrong about the legality, because you can ignore the order even if it's legal.

Where things get interesting is that last corner:

Upper right: Authority to issue orders, but you're ordered to break the law. Generally in the military, being wrong about the order being unlawful is strict liability, but you're safe obeying even illegal orders unless they are unambiguously illegal; The illegality is on your commanding officer, not you.

If your commanding officer orders you to shoot somebody, and you don't want to, you'd better be damned certain that it would be illegal to shoot them, merely being uncertain doesn't do you any good. He doesn't HAVE to prove to you that the order is lawful before you're obligated to obey it.

In the private sector the burden of proof shifts, if there was any doubt about the legality of the act, the legal system will usually have your back in refusing it.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think the distinction between no authority and otherwise illegal is as clear as you postulate. Or even a legitimate distinction so far as the laws are concerned.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There are many reasons that an order can be non-lawful.

One of those is if the order is to commit a crime or to do something illegal.

But generally, one is not required no disobey a non-lawful order, they are only required not to do illegal stuff. The distinction is irrelevant in this context, and many people are glossing over it.

[not guilty]

Per The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations:

6.2.12.1 Superior Orders

The fact that a person committed a war crime under orders of their government or of a superior does not relieve that person from responsibility under international law provided it was possible, in fact, for that person to make a moral choice. See DOD Law of War Manual, 18.22.4. Under the Rules for Court Martial (RCM) and MMC, it is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders, unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful (RCM, 916(d) and MMC, Part II, Rule 916(d)). An order requiring the performance of a military duty to act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime (e.g., an order directing the murder of a civilian, a noncombatant, a combatant who is hors de combat, or the abuse or torture of a prisoner) [boldface added] (e.g., see MCM, Part IV, Paragraph 14c(2)(a)(i)). The fact an offense was committed pursuant to superior orders may be considered as mitigation to reduce the level of punishment (e.g., United States v. Sawada, Law of Trials of War Crimes, Volume V, 7–8, 13–22, UN War Crimes Commission, (1948); ICTY, Article 7(4)).

https://stjececmsdusgva001.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/documents/NWP_1-14M.pdf#page=104

Trump's order to take out civilians in the Caribbean accordingly posits a literal, textbook example of "a patently illegal order." Fealty to the service member's oath requires disobedience thereof.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You asserting it don't make it so. How much confidence do you have that a Military Judge wouldn't rule such an order lawful?

OTOH as I've pointed out earlier, it's not clear that it's a crime for service members to disobey a lawful order from civilian members of the chain of command. So folks at the top may have an out there. But it would still be risky.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that we have to disaggregate the question of whether Trump has the authority to order something done, from the question of whether that something would be lawful to do.

Nobody is concerned that he's going to order random servicemen to mow his lawn, an order he can't lawfully give, but the soldier could lawfully comply with. They're concerned about him issuing orders that ARE within his domain of lawful authority as Commander in Chief, but which command unlawful acts.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think you need to disaggregate that at all, is my rejoinder. There is no material distinction in this case.

[David Nieporent]

As - to take the example of attacking Venezuelan boats - it is very unlikely to be manifest either as to the relevant law or facts

It says something really sick about our society that people think there's even a remote possibility that blowing up civilian ships, in peacetime, outside a combat theater, without even so much as a warning, could be legal.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"really sick about our society"

What will Robert Kennedy Jr. do about it?

[loki13]

Probably put something on the CDC website saying that a lack of true love in your heart for Trump leads to autism.

Also? We should re-introduce smallpox, because that's the only way to combat seed oils.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It says something really sick about our society that people think there's even a remote possibility that blowing up civilian ships, in peacetime, outside a combat theater, without even so much as a warning, could be legal."

Recently you were defending the destruction of civilian fishing boats by Navy SEALS. Do you think the question would be any different if the SEALS had relayed the info back and a drone pilot were ordered to take out the fishing boat?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Just because David Nieporent defended Trump in one instance doesn’t mean he is required to defend everything Trump does. During a 2019 espionage mission in North Korea, navy SEALs spotted a boat which they assumed was North Korean military. They opened fire, killing everyone onboard. They subsequently boarded the boat and discovered it was just a fishing boat. This was bad, but it was a mistake, not a case of deliberately targeting civilians.

Trump subsequently said he knew nothing about this incident. If that wasn’t a lie or an indication that his brain has turned to mush, it means that Trump delegated to his subordinates the power to initiate an act of war against a foreign power with nuclear weapons. I don’t think a President has any business delegating that type of authority to his subordinates, but doing so isn’t a war crime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The reason I picked that hypo is because it's a similar situation to this one. You're a drone pilot. It's peacetime. You get an order to light up an apparent civilian vessel off the coast of North Korea. Based on Dave's previous comments, he thinks that could be a perfectly legal order.

But it's not that different from these scenarios.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a similar situation.
There was an exigency at work via a mistake in fact of the forces on the ground in the other example.

That's nothing like an order from on high to kill.

You're lying. Why are you like this?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. My hypo was that the SEALs called in a drone strike instead of engaging the boat directly. That was the similar situation.

Why can't you read?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Assuming you read the hypo part, that's the whole point.

The drone pilot gets an order: "Blow up that boat."

He does know if there's "an exigency at work via a mistake in fact of the forces on the ground" or if it's just a civilian boat full of people committing a noncapital crime.

[Armchair]

A naval submarine commander is given a coded order to sink a three Chinese civilian ferries crossing the Taiwan strait. No other information is given.

Do they have a duty to follow that order? Why or why not?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, if he disobeys order, his fate will depend on whether or not the order is found lawful as a matter of law. If the order is found lawful, AFAIK there is no defense.

If he obeys it and it is found unlawful, the government has to prove to a military panel that he knew it was unlawful or that a person of ordinary sense would know that it was unlawful. So if there's doubt, it's better to err on the side of obeying the order.

[wvattorney13]

This is absolutely right which is why the video and the responses on here are just posturing and pandering.

A soldier is ordered to "blow up that boat." He doesn't get to make an independent determination of whether that boat is civilian, whether we have declared war, etc. The default assumption that is unchallengeable on the limited facts known by the soldier is that the boat is a valid military objective.

Whether it is actually unlawful can be debated here, in Congress, and in the media. What doesn't happen is a soldier questioning an order, asking for "clarification," etc. His clarification is, "Yes, see THAT boat there? Blow it up!"

The "don't obey an unlawful order" is a unicorn with no real world application in any situation we remotely have here.

And frankly everyone knows that.

[Sarcastr0]

The default assumption that is unchallengeable on the limited facts known by the soldier
You've created an assumption that swallows the rule. That means go back and interrogate your assumptions.

Unless you think the whole 'don't follow unlawful orders' is just empty wind?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You've created an assumption that swallows the rule."

You've misunderstood the rule. The rule is, don't follow orders that you know are unlawful. And in the vast majority of cases, the service member won't know that the order is unlawful.

[Armchair]

"The "don't obey an unlawful order" is a unicorn"

Is it? Imagine the following situation. The Chinese have started an invasion of Taiwan. The President orders the US 7th fleet to intervene and sink the civilian Chinese Ferries that are crossing the straight.

A number of posts go up as well as speeches from sailors in the 7th fleet. Congress hasn't declared war on China. Congress hasn't declared any authorization of force on China. We have no military treaty with Taiwan. Taiwan is in fact, legally part of China. What legal authority do we have to sink civilian ferries in another nation's territorial waters? Wouldn't doing so be a war crime? And grossly illegal? Isn't there a DUTY to not obey such orders?

[Sarcastr0]

What legal authority do we have to sink civilian ferries in another nation's territorial waters?

There's a treaty re: Taiwan.

It says that it's US policy to "provide for the maintenance of peace and security in the Western Pacific" and to consider any effort to determine Taiwan's future by force a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of grave concern to the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The TRA does not guarantee or relinquish the U.S. intervening militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, as its primary purpose is to ensure that the Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the U.S. president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of the Congress."

Wanna try again?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kelly could have resigned his commission as an officer -- instead he accepted the monthly retirement check, with the understanding that he could be recalled at any time, and hence could not engage in conduct unbecoming an officer.

[jimc5499]

So Mark Kelly actually commits the text book definition of Sedition and you want to worship the ground he walks on. If you or I would have made that video, we could claim our First Amendment rights. Kelly stepped in it twice. A case can be made for all of the people on that video that they are using the power of their office to encourage members of the military to commit insubordination and dereliction of duty. Kelly steps in it again, because he's a retired military officer.
US Title 18§2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States-

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811 ; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §46, 63 Stat. 96 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 ; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, §515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236 .)

[David Nieporent]

So Mark Kelly actually commits the text book definition of Sedition

WTF "text books" are you reading? Mao's Little Red Book? Mein Kampf?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s called the “UCMJ” if you’d served you’d know about it.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Are you claiming that "Mark Kelly actually commits the text book definition of Sedition " as defined in the Manual for Courts Martial?

If so, it's obvious that you've never cracked the cover.

[Mr. Bumble]

"UCMJ is the legal code for the United States military. It covers the rights, duties, and punishments of military personnel and civilians."
...it is not just "the Manual for Courts Martial".

[Stella Link's Ghost]

If you are in the military and you want to know what the UCMJ has to say about various criminal matters, the place to look is the MCM. If your point is the pedantic one that the MCM is not the defining source, you are correct.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm pedantic?
To the best of my knowledge the MCM is contained in the UCMJ.
Take the loss.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"To the best of my knowledge the MCM is contained in the UCMJ."

See this link to gain incite into what the MCM is:

https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-Library-Display/Article/3019812/manual-for-courts-martial-united-states-2024-edition/

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Incite, insight. Goldberg, Iceberg.

[John Mosby]

Would be really fun to prosecute the Seditious MCs under the federal civilian statute, in red states. You'd have venue because their "advice" reaches to TXARNG, MSARNG, etc, soldiers, and of course because their video was seen in those states.

Even more fun for those states to prosecute the MCs under state sedition statutes. After all, it's okay for blue states to prosecute ICE agents, right? And hey they can spend the next ten years arguing supremacy clause, speech/debate clause, etc, in both state and federal systems. If they win at the end, it's all ok, right?

Btw, Seditious MCs would be a great name for a rap group. I'd be surprised if it's not already. CC, JSM

[not guilty]

"Would be really fun to prosecute the Seditious MCs under the federal civilian statute, in red states. You'd have venue because their "advice" reaches to TXARNG, MSARNG, etc, soldiers, and of course because their video was seen in those states."

I don't think that suffices to establish venue in a remote location. Establishment of venue focuses on the conduct of the accused. Per 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a):

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.

An offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2387(a)(1) is completed when the message is published by the accused. Receipt of the message by a service member is not an element of the offense.

[questioner7]

Isn't messaging troops protected by the First Amendment? It doesn't fall under enumerated exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless conduct (no imminence here). Separately, isn't Senators' work-related speech additionally protected by the Speech and Debate clause?

[not guilty]

"Isn't messaging troops protected by the First Amendment? It doesn't fall under enumerated exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless conduct (no imminence here). Separately, isn't Senators' work-related speech additionally protected by the Speech and Debate clause?"

I don't think there is any question that the subject video is advocacy protected by the First Amendment as to civilians, and prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2387 would render the statute unconstitutional as applied -- at least as to the five members of Congress who have no current connection to the military. I surmise that is why the Secretary of Defense is focusing on Senator Kelly, who as a retired naval officer is arguably subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and theoretically could be recalled to active duty and disciplined. https://ucmj.us/do-retired-military-still-fall-under-ucmj/

Article 94 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 894, states in part:

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who —

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

On the facts here, application of this provision to Senator Kelly would be preposterous, but the provisions of the First Amendment have been construed to apply differently in the military context. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974):

"In the armed forces, some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, [395 U.S. 444 (1969)]. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that, at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected. United States v. Gray, [20 U.S.C.M.A. 63, 42 C.M.R. 255 (1970)]."

417 U.S. at 758-759, quoting United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C.M.A. at 570, 45 C.M.R. at 344.

As for the Speech or Debate clause of Article I, § 6, that protection extends only to legislative acts. It would not seem to apply to publication of the video here. For example, Senator Mike Gravel's arrangement with Beacon Press for private publication of the Pentagon Papers was not subject to the coause:

Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. As the Court of Appeals put it, the courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House, but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations." United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d at 760.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972).

[M L]

Right - because Democrats are real big on following the Constitution. Wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional! Subordinates and states and localities should refuse unconstitutional things!

That's a real knee slapper.

[Commenter_XY]

Their speech was overtly political, and is protected by 1A.

That said, the congressional nutjobs group implied that obeying the 'wrong' order might later be found unlawful, and open you up to prosecution. That is what they were trying to do.

The congressional nutjobs engaged in protected political speech, but that doesn't make it right. There are many things that are unethical as hell, but perfectly legal to do.

[dwb68]

Fed cutting rates is a mistake. Inflation is still too high, and the budget deficit is too wide. We are entering a period of stagflation (although to be fair, 4.5% unemployment is not particularly high which is why I think inflation will stay high). GOP should have taken the opportunity to cut the deficit to a manageable percentage of GDP. The BBB tax cuts were stimulative at a time when we didn't need much stimulation. It also looks like the Trump admin will cave on health care subsidies because no one can figure out how to make health care cheaper (making healthcare cheaper in the US means rolling back some ObamaCare regs and making medical school cheaper so we have more doctors willing to work for less, it also means unwinding local healthcare monopolies and encouraging price transparency and competition).

Current forecast: Inflation remains high; economic mood dour; GOP gets creamed in the midterms.

Democrats will kill the filibuster the first chance they get. GOP should kill it first, although I think it's too late to pass anything meaningful before midterms, and anyway what the GOP would pass may virtue signal to the right but might do more harm than good.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Experience around the world seems to show that single payer makes health care cheaper. That should not be surprising. With single payer, insurance companies do not get to jack up prices on most people to subsidize others—especially those others with corporate human resources departments perpetually busy pruning health risks.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's basically no experience around the world with "single payer" in the radical form Democrats have been discussing, where private health insurance is essentially outlawed. In the watered down form analogous to K-12 education in this country, where the private version remains legal, but most people can't afford it thanks to the taxes funding the government version?

It's cheaper and substantially worse. That's why the US gets so much medical tourism! Turns out that for expensive health problems, stalling until people die is a major cost saver. Pressuring people to agree to assisted suicide is the even greater cost saver that's the new trend in places like Canada.

As you'd expect from a product sold by a company that has its own army.

[Malika la Maize]

“Pressuring people to agree to assisted suicide is the even greater cost saver that's the new trend in places like Canada.”

Cite?

[Michael P]

Timely and related, from Reason's Brickbats: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-13/australians-waiting-years-to-see-specialists/105991158

[Sarcastr0]

"single payer" in the radical form Democrats have been discussing, where private health insurance is essentially outlawed
Is that really the only plan on the table? Because I'm skeptical that Brett has his finger on the pulse of the Democratic Party.

IOW, Brett feels the need to strawman to really make the argument pop. To be fair, his threshold for when to make up what the left is doing is basically the floor.

That's why the US gets so much medical tourism
Our healthcare is great if you're rich enough.

But our total outcomes are not great, since they have to count *ugh* poor people.

[Brett Bellmore]

What does "single payer" MEAN, if not that there is only one payer?

And he who pays the piper calls the tune, famously.

[Sarcastr0]

As with any general attribute of a basked of policies, it varies.
There are a lot of models, plenty of which include private options. Including many which fit under the 'Medicare for all" umbrella.
Is Canada single payer? That depends on who you ask.

But the point is, the radical form Democrats have been discussing is not supported. You probably read a proposal somewhere and decided it made you mad enough it must be what the Dems all wanted.

[Zarniwoop]

No one thinks that "single payer" system would prevent Elon from hiring his own doctor.

Now roll that back to, say, the mere top 0.1%. If they want to buy some supplemental coverage or get plastic surgery for "Mar-a-Lago lips", that's fine. Worried about not having instant access to the latest and greatest $100K/month anti-cancer drugs? Get some additional coverage or pay out of pocket.

Buy "single payer" doesn't have to mean that everyone is exactly equal, it means that a reasonable level of basic care is available to everyone. And sure, that's not going to be Elon level coverage, or POTUS level coverage. Which is fine.

So if you insist on having pretty-frackin-obvious things spelled out for you because otherwise you'll disingenuously misinterpret the two word label, how about we call it the "single payer for reasonable but not POTUS-level universal coverage, where the rich can buy more if they want" model?

Which people will then shorten to "single payer", because duh.

[Krayt]

One fixes this by bringing people up, not by tearing down everyone else.

That always was the real problem. Single payer was a political goal severed from the problem definition.

It's as if Social Security were invented today, and politicians came along and said, "Retirees, here's your monthly stipend. All other money you have saved during your life is forfeited and cannot be used in retirement. You shall survive on only what we provide."

Of course, cutting costs by eviscerating the profit motive is mass murderous at a rate the 20th century could scarcely imagine. Indeed, it's trivial mathematically that lagging tech due to this already killed vastly more than all pogroms and wars combined.

Earth finished WWII with 20 million more people than when it started. The same could not be said for a 20 or 40 year difference in medical cures.

In any case, a single payer iPhone development plan by government would get the pols run out of town on a rail. And that's just for fluff. How much more vital lifesaving techniques, drugs, and hardware?

Robotic bypass laproscropy? Or grow new organs? These things do not just appear. An asshole, pontificating politician pretending to be your friend, riding to your rescue, can't give it out for free until it's invented, first.

It's based on some faulty, all too human idea they're taking something that exists, and giving it to you, praise them! But that's not how it works. The lifesaving power is in ongoing development, not seizing a grain mill water wheel from the 14th century and saying, "Bread for all, for ever!"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

But our total outcomes are not great, since they have to count *ugh* poor people.

Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America by Irin Carmon is a good new book that covers some of this.

It also suggests the outcomes are not always great, even if you aren't poor, though in one case, it might have helped to keep the person alive.

[Sarcastr0]

I was being facile with poor. Medical debt, etc. folds in just about everyone who isn't well into upper class as losers in the current system.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. It still matters.

[Michael P]

Is "single payer makes health care cheaper" the new fiction, now that people are starting to realize that US governments spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and we haven't gotten any of the results that leftists insisted we would get from higher government spending on healthcare?

[Sarcastr0]

...Do you think the left is only now pivoting to single payer?

[Michael P]

So, "yes".

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, so you pay zero attention to politics other than what the right tells you to say on any given day, eh?

[Michael P]

I pay attention to the fact that you never bring an actual argument, only personal attacks.

If you don't want me to make the obvious inferences from your shitheel comments, be less of a shit.

[Sarcastr0]

The left has been advocating for single payer since at least the 1990s.
Obamacare pissed them off quite a bit for not being single payer.

[Michael P]

Obama did the most leftist thing that he could do in the political environment. There was no way he could have gotten single-payer healthcare through Congress. So the left got very upset that he did something disastrous and dishonest instead of something cataclysmically evil and destructive. Very on brand for them.

But that still doesn't engage with my earlier point. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99918/pros_and_cons_of_a_single-payer_plan.pdf lists a bunch of supposed advantages of single-payer, but none of them say that total costs go down, probably because the Urban Institute is honest enough to realize that they don't.

[Malika la Maize]

I don’t know about the UI but it seems Trump himself thinks big government health payers can drive down prices.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-negotiated-medicare-prices-15-more-drugs-test-cost-savings-promise-2025-11-25/

The problem with single payer is the rationing, lack of innovation, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "leftists insisted we would get from higher government spending on healthcare"

Also you: "the left got very upset that he did something disastrous and dishonest instead of something cataclysmically evil and destructive."

You're so eager to blame the left, you have them on both sides of the argument!
---------
Your linked analysis: One of the often-discussed proposals to reform the health care system is a single-payer plan, sometimes called “Medicare for All.” Arguments for and against are wide ranging. There is also considerable confusion as to what “single payer” means and how it might operate.

You don't have any ideas, just attacks.

A normal person would have some kind of thesis, starting with (and it's remarkable I need to specify this stuff)
What you mean by single payer, or
What you mean by the left, and

Depending on which you want to criticize.

Health care policy is particularly complex, which is why your style of shallow talking points is showing it's ass particularly hard on this front.

[Michael P]

It's ironic that the shit who cuts out most of a sentence to change the sense of words accuses me of having shadow taking points.

But in doing so, you admit again that the answer to my original question is "yes".

[Sarcastr0]

Your analysis specifies it's incomplete because it's only going to look at Medicare for All.

I don't love the analysis but there's not a lot of point in engaging since you don't know what you're talking about.

[Michael P]

*My* analysis? Are you blaming me for the Urban Institute's work?

You said "The left has been advocating for single payer since at least the 1990s" but still haven't provided any evidence that Lathrop's "single payer makes health care cheaper" has been a serious argument. I found a list of arguments for it from a fairly left group, and total cost reductions was not one of those.

Other sources say that systems like Medicare don't count as single-payer because they're not Medicare for All; for example, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medicare-vs-single-payer . So I put very little weight in your assertion that some analysis is deficient because it supposedly only looks at Medicare for All.

[Sarcastr0]

No need to tag in Lathrop on my behalf; I'll argue for what I posted, thanks.

[Michael P]

You've forgotten what this thread was all about. Typical.

[DDHarriman]

Gruber confessed on video that Obamacare was an intentional pile of shit to harm millions so they beg for shitty Single Payer.

That's how political and vicious Democrats are. BAMN

[Malika la Maize]

Cite?

[Brett Bellmore]

Jonathan Gruber is very, very sorry about Obamacare ‘gaffes’

Kinsey gaffes, of course.

But I don't recall him in particular making that specific admission, no matter how many other damaging admissions he made.

[bernard11]

You are full of shit.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

How about LBJ-Care? Or FDR Security?

I prefer the Affordable Care Act.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Affordable"

A lie, right? If it was true, why the current kerfuffle over rising premiums and subsidies?

[ThePublius]

"I pay attention to the fact that you never bring an actual argument, only personal attacks."

+1

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 2 hours ago
Is "single payer makes health care cheaper" the new fiction,

That has been a fiction for 30+ years.
The other fiction is the longer life expectancy in single payer countries, which ignores demographic data, failure to adjust for accidental deaths, differences in counting infant mortality, lifestyle issue all of which have little or no bearing on health care.

[jb]

A few things:

1) Single payer *is* a lot cheaper, even in the US. Just look at Medicare costs versus private insurance.

2) Increased government spending on healthcare has actually achieved its principal goal, which is a lot more people have health coverage. The ACA was largely a coverage expansion mechanism, although it did decreases costs per person a bit as well.

3) There's lots of ways to get to universal coverage. Basically every other civilized country in the world manages it, in various different ways. The US just happens to have the worst and dumbest system of all, which primarily benefits healthcare intermediaries as opposed to either patients or providers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"worst and dumbest system of all"

Really? I thought we passed a best and smart reform back in 2010. Weird it didn't work.

[Joe_dallas]

1 - Yes cheaper though primarily due to simply paying less and rationing.
2 - decrease costs per person - that would be news to my HR department with premiums approx 70% higher
3 - a large portion, if not the majority, of the benefits go to the providers (docs and hospital facilities ). Most everyone has seen the large expansion of medical facilities through the country.

[loki13]

"There's lots of ways to get to universal coverage. Basically every other civilized country in the world manages it, in various different ways. The US just happens to have the worst and dumbest system of all, which primarily benefits healthcare intermediaries as opposed to either patients or providers."

....also, the idea that there isn't "rationing" being done in America through the system we adopted (largely a patchwork of private insurance companies) is kind of insane.

No one seriously argues that if you have tens of billions of dollars, you can get whatever healthcare you want from some place.

Most people don't have that. So, at that point, you are left with two types of rationing-

1. Market force rationing. That's what the market does; it allocates scarce resources in an efficient manner according to those who will pay for it (supply and demand). As we all know (sorry ... as we all SHOULD know) the health care market has some peculiar characteristics. One is asymmetry of information. Another is inability to plan (when you have a heart attack, you don't usually have great bargaining power). And the final one is ... an inelasticity on the demand side (if you need X procedure or drug to save your life, your demand for it will not change regardless of the price that is being charged). Still, the allocation of goods through the market is just rationing; an efficient method, and usually the best method, but a method.

2. Rationing from insurance companies. This will shock you, but when we make intermediaries have a profit motive, they will act in a way that increases their profit! They will (for example) arbitrarily deny people coverage knowing that a lot of people won't appeal it. They will exclude doctors or procedures. They will make paperwork barriers. And so on. They will maximize their revenue by rationing care (and, of course, by excluding as many people as possible that need that care).

And so on. Our system in terms of bang for the buck really sucks. If you're reasonably healthy and you have reasonably good insurance (through an employer), it works well. If you are incredibly rich and can pay a la carte for anything you ever need, it works great. For all other situations, not so much.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki's comment "2. Rationing from insurance companies. This will shock you, but when we make intermediaries have a profit motive, they will act in a way that increases their profit! They will (for example) arbitrarily deny people coverage knowing that a lot of people won't appeal it. They will exclude doctors or procedures. They will make paperwork barriers. And so on. They will maximize their revenue by rationing care (and, of course, by excluding as many people as possible that need that care)."

Another variation of talking points, while somewhat true, it remains misleading. Go back to the basics of micro economics - supply and demand curves. Monopolies dont maximize profits by raising prices above the market, raising prices too high results in less profit. Somewhat similarly, health insurance companies dont maximize profits by rationing care. They do it by controlling market share. With market share, they can control what is paid to providers and revenue from the insured. Insurance companies rationing care results in losing market share which means lower profits.

[Joe_dallas]

loki does touch on market forces and his comment under #1 which is reasonable. likewise his last comment is reasonable. Unfortunately, much of the talking heads / advocates whhere the discussions center on far too many talking points on both sides of the spectrum with a very superficial grasp of the complexities. .

[dwb68]

No, single payer only leads to rationing. Healthcare is expensive in the US because doctors get paid a lot more.

[Sarcastr0]

The market rations as much as any other distribution method, just towards the wealthy.

[Michael P]

Only if you lie about what "rationing" means. Are you going to get your key definitions wrong today, too?

https://www.britannica.com/money/rationing

[Sarcastr0]

I get my definitions from dictionaries, not encyclopedias.

rationing
noun [ U ]

a system of limiting the amount of something that each person is allowed to have

You seem to have gotten into something about military rationing in wartime.

[Michael P]

Prices don't set rules that "allow" having something or not. If you're going to rely on a very short definition, you have to pay attention to its details.

[Sarcastr0]

Prices don't set rules that "allow" having something or not.

I'm not walking you through how capitalism works, Tovarich.

[Michael P]

Hey, you finally realize at least one of your own limitations.

[DDHarriman]

Market prices are now "rationing"?

Are you a woman? You argue and think emotions first.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? Are you saying rationing is the result of the invisible hand? That it's not a policy implemented by some government or bureaucracy?

[Michael P]

He's saying that markets "ration" goods by not providing infinite supply at zero cost. It's as dumb a theory as what he usually pushes, because he wants to pretend free markets are just like a government command economy.

[Sarcastr0]

Any system for distributing a limited supply of anything will include rationing.

Distribution via a market, free or regulated, is a policy decision you need to grapple with exactly as you would any other distribution method.

Trying to pretend markets are not in that game is some of the more brainless market-worship I've seen on this website.

[ThePublius]

"Any system for distributing a limited supply of anything will include rationing."

The most common system for distributing a limited supply of anything doesn't involve rationing; it's call capitalism. I.e., competition in the marketplace.

[Absaroka]

"Any system for distributing a limited supply of anything will include rationing."

That's a pretty non-standard usage.

Most people would say 'beer isn't rationed' because I could cash out the bank account this morning, rent a U-Haul, and fill it up with beer by noon, by going to maybe two supermarkets.

Back in the 70's, people said 'gas is rationed' because filling stations would say '5 gallons per customer' (or other schemes like odd/even days etc).

I grok your point - private 747's aren't available to most of us because we can't afford them. But 'private 747's are rationed' isn't how that situation is usually described. If Boeing had enough zillionaires clamoring for 747's that it instituted a 'one per customer per decade' policy, that would be rationing.

[Michael P]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

Although 747s are no longer being produced, so your hypo doesn't work so well. I still wouldn't call "no new production" rationing.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not nonstandard usage. I posted a dictionary definition above. Here's one more on point:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5804460/

Health services rationing means restricting the access of some people to useful or potentially useful health services due to budgetary limitation. The inherent features of the health market and health services, limited resources, and unlimited needs necessitate health services rationing.

Maybe it was different in the 1970s, but today rationing absolutely includes how the market distributes limited resources.

And yes, that includes private 747s, as much as the public not being able to buy and operate an F-35 due to government regulations means those are rationed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran"

This study aimed at critically examining the concept of rationing in health sector and identifying its purposes, influencing factors, mechanisms, and outcomes.

When sources like this are all you can find, maybe it's time to question your premise.

[Absaroka]

Collins Dictionary:

" Rationing is the system of limiting the amount of food, water, petrol, or other necessary substances that each person is allowed to have or buy when there is not enough of them.
The municipal authorities here are preparing for food rationing.
Synonyms: restriction, control, regulation, limitation"

Oxford Learners:

"the policy of limiting the amount of food, fuel, etc. that people are allowed to have when there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they want

The government may have to introduce water rationing.
wartime rationing (= introduced during a war)
credit rationing (= limiting the amount of money that people are allowed to borrow)
The government introduced meat rationing in May."

[ThePublius]

Nah, you're stretching 'rationing' to mean what you want it to mean, not what it actually means. Rationing is a deliberate, controlling act. Regular market forces are not. My inability to afford a private jet doesn't at all mean that access to those is rationed. That's just nonsense. Anyone who has the means can buy one.

Your statement that "[a]ny system for distributing a limited supply of anything will include rationing" is still wrong. Market forces are not rationing.

If I were pressed to come up with a definition of rationing it would be along the lines of applying when an authority or bureaucracy of some kind exclusively controls the supply of a service or commodity. So, health care rationing can only occur when access to health care is controlled or regulated by the government, directly or indirectly, or some other authority of bureaucracy, and there is not alternate supply.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka - assuming a limited supply of healthcare, both your definitions encompass reliance on the free market.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 - your random statements do not constitute an argument, even on the rare occasions they make any sense.

Have you learned what "allow" means yet?

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, are you arguing you're allowed to buy stuff you don't have the money for?

[ThePublius]

"Sarcastr0 11 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Michael, are you arguing you're allowed to buy stuff you don't have the money for?"

Let's take this apart.

What do you mean by "allowed?" Do you mean that there's some authority that determines what you can buy based on your means?

No! If you don't have the money, you just can't buy it! It has nothing to do with someone, or some authority determining you are not allowed to buy it. That's ridiculous.

Taken to its extreme, yes, you can buy stuff you don't have the money for, you just have to deal with it when the bills come due.

I honestly don't know where you're coming from with this, except to perhaps defend your warped definition of ration.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Present Medicare rules are built around rationing, in exactly the sense of limiting the amount of care available per person. The rules permit supplementary plans, which provide multi-point menus of goodies if you buy into a provider's plan. Providers compete by tailoring different lists of supplemental benefits.

Problem is, the only Medicare insureds allowed to buy in are people without many other expensive problems. When they review your application to buy the supplement, they check how much other routine expense you generate, and if it is too much, no more for you. So in that respect, care is rationed, even if some categories of care are not.

I can't buy a plan for more vision care, or supplemental dental care, because I already get monthly infusions to suppress a genetically mediated auto-immune disorder. That means I fail the total annual cost screen, and become ineligible to get reimbursed for the supplements.

I think that tells me two things:

1. That I am being rationed, and thus excluded from some services available to others.

2. That routine prices for other Medicare services provide sufficient over-payments to permit profitable sale of service-added supplements to folks who do not otherwise over-use basic Medicare coverage, including other supplementary coverage.

I have no idea what happens if someone who does qualify for one of the additional-services supplements, and gets the benefits, has a subsequent expensive change in medical status. Do they get to keep the dental care, or not? I don't know.

I also don't know for sure if I even understand what is happening now. My text above was based on research that I did about 4 years back, so rely on it only with caution.

[dwb68]

I mean I am not objecting to the idea that prices "ration" goods in a very elementary sense. Central planning though is very poor at building supply, thats why price/market based systems raise living standards.

[Sarcastr0]

There are costs, though I think you overstate the issues based on the systems in other countries.

We find social value in the way our society distributes health care in places other than efficiency.

It's a very different thing than, say, music or Christmas Trees.

[Malika la Maize]

"Our Prices Discriminate Because We Can't" The Simpsons

[Frank Drackman]

correcting for Inflation, Physician pay peaked in the 1970's, factoring the lost years (minimum of 7 years after College for FP, Internal Medicine, Peds, 8 yrs for OB/GYN, Anesthesia, 13 for a Spine or Cardiac Surgeon) malpractice, school loans, you're better off being a Plumber (mine used to be a Surgeon)
It's expensive because of the better treatments (you know what LBJ got for his Heart? Nitroglycerine and dead at 64) and the "Suits" that actually run Medicine.

Frank

[dwb68]

"Better treatments" require more labor-intensive inputs, aka doctor time.
Also, my point was not about "real doctors' wages", it's about the relative labor cost of the US vs other countries. Canada pays their doctors considerably less. But then... Canadians come here for health care they cant get there.

[Frank Drackman]

Biggest thing that's reduced Heart Attacks was the introduction of Statins (Thank Merck, of course they got the idea from a Japanese Biologist who died insane & penniless).
Lots of Canadian Sawbones come here for the Shekels they don't get in Canadia, funny how they'll all tell you how great their National Healthcare System (that they don't use) is.

[dwb68]

Not statins: stents. Dont ask me how I know.

[Frank Drackman]

If you need a Stent now a days you deserve it.

[dwb68]

??? idk what that means. People are getting stents now in their forties, people who otherwise would have died. Statins are good, but fundamentally stents push the arteries open, even ones that are 99% clogged, preventing open heart surgery and saving lives. I met a guy who had dozens of stents.

[Michael P]

"Better treatments" nowadays involve a lot more than additional labor: they involve better equipment (for diagnostics and treatment), a wider variety of medicines, and more. It's not only provider labor.

[dwb68]

Everything at the end of the day is labor. The steel and magnets in the equipment were mined with... labor!

Equipment is expensive because the engineering (labor!) and testing (labor!) that goes into it is expensive. And someone has to pay the doctors to do the research to confirm the equipment is therapeutic. There is a lot of labor that goes into pharma studies, and there is a lot of labor to make the pills and to ensure the pharma plants run cleanly and safely.

And the technicians that read the results of the diagnostics...that's labor too.

At the bottom of every good and service there is mostly someones sweat equity labor, even when that sweat equity happened in a mine overseas.

[loki13]

"Everything at the end of the day is labor."

DWB ... c'mon. Look, I know we don't rigorously apply economics here, but aren't you missing at least one VERY BIG other component?

Here's a hint- there's a book about it, by a very famous economist ... the name is used a lot here ... albeit just as an unthinking pejorative. Das Kapital?

Labor ... and capital? Because labor is definitely a big part of production, but in the modern times, capital (physical capital, from factories to tools to computers) and financial capital (which is also kind of important ....) is a really big part of production.

Doncha think?

But the whole difference in the modern economy has been the displacement of labor with capital ... because in most industries, you can use a lot less of one (labor) than you used to.

This isn't much of a dispute.... is it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's not as much of a distinction as Loki would have us believe. Capital, like factories, tools, and computers, requires a significant amount of labor.

[Sarcastr0]

Long debunked Marxist theories are turning up again somehow, on the right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Building factories doesn't require labor?

[bernard11]

Surprised to see dwb promoting the Value Theory of Labor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Where did he say anything about value?

[dwb68]

Thats not the "Value Theory of Labor" (quite). I didn't say all labor hours are equally valuable.

I simply stated a fact: everything humans make/use/consume requires labor input. Especially medical care because its highly specialized. That includes children whose value is not included in GDP. Even wild fruit trees have to be plucked, and deer need to be hunted.

[Sarcastr0]

You're literally doing the labor theory of value. Unless you're arguing that 'everything is labor but some things have no value.'

Which it does not appear you are.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And, unsurprisingly, vice versa. Opportunities to game two systems for what each does best are always appreciated.

But lately, right wing Canadians have been trying to tear down their own system, which was formerly prized by Canadians.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, I'd be careful citing Canada as an example. You're old with a chronic ailment. Just remember, when Canadians get around to euthanizing the chronically ill elderly patients, and it is not so far off, be thankful you aren't there and you're here (in the US).

I'd much rather be in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Just a brain pickled in right-wing media.

[JohnSmith97]

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2022.html#a3.1

In 2023 the number was over 15k

But, hell, that is just the data from that ultra right wing Canadian gov't, right?

We all know your vibes are far more accurate.

[DDHarriman]

There already is a large population under single payer.

Why aren't those costs cheap?

What other markets do having a single payer drive down costs? Or is this a principle that only exists for the health insurance market?

[Michael P]

As the washed-out wannabe newspaper publisher explained, those costs are high because insurance companies "get to jack up prices on most people to subsidize others", duh! Government only pays for 5/9ths of health care now, that's obviously not "single payer".

Arnold Kling's line about government subsidizing demand while restricting supply applies here.

[DDHarriman]

Medicare A&B isn't government single payer?

US public per capita healthcare spending is higher than anywhere else in the world. Why on Earth would we want the people who have given us this current system where they shit up 4/9ths (it's really closer to 2/3rds when you consider their regulations and compliance costs)to control all of it?

[Brett Bellmore]

They don't "get" to do that, they're compelled to do that. By the government: If you don't offer the subsidized rates the government demands some people get, you're not allowed to participate in the industry.

[jb]

Doctors don't have to accept Medicare or Medicaid. Many do not.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, and "concierge medicine" is one possible way out of this.

But I was responding to Michael P's statement about insurance companies, and the ACA does indeed make it at least difficult to offer health insurance that doesn't meet the government's precise specifications.

Or maybe more accurately, difficult to get away with buying it...

[Michael P]

To clarify, my first paragraph above was entire sarcastic, but I think not far from what Lathrop actually argued.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Many do not."

Because the reimbursement rate is too low.

Go to single payer, everyone gets Medicare/Medicaid rates.

Doctors will either switch to cash only, or more likely quit/retire.

Shortage of doctors is good, right?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not a fan of single payer but lots of economists argue it could generate savings, if from drug costs alone.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416416/single-payer-systems-likely-save-money-us-analysis-finds#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThis%20suggests%20that%20fears%20that,payer%20systems%20would%20yield%20savings.

[ThePublius]

Well, economists have been right about everything else, so why not believe them now?

Oh, wait....

[Malika la Maize]

They’ve probably been more right than internet amateurs.

[DDHarriman]

How's Single Payer Defense and Single Payer Medicare A & B doing at generating savings?

Did the analysis explain why those single payer systems aren't generating savings?

[Michael P]

Unsurprisingly, models developed by advocates of an idea make that idea look good.

Such models are seldom accurate, and are often wrong even directionally. You have to be a special kind of dumb to argue that finding 19 models that favor an idea means that they are reliable models.

[apedad]

Whew, I'm glad you pointed that out.

I was getting worried for the flat earth folks.

[Joe_dallas]

The author of the study is Christopher Cai's. His linkedin bio shows he is very active in pushing single payer health care.

MP's observation that the model is heavily biased toward single payer being less costly is a reasonable observation. It should have been easy to recognize the report was an advocacy report as opposed to an objective analysis.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not odd for a person whose work finds a connection between some benefit of a policy to be an advocate of that policy, what depends is what comes first.

Also, lots of other research has found reduced costs.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/#:~:text=A%20report%20released%20by%20the%20libertarian%20Mercatus,period%20is%20a%20savings%20of%20$2.054%20trillion

[Joe_dallas]

Great job - you found another advocacy report.

How do you think single payer achieves lower costs?
Have you ever heard of rationing?

Weird - that you noted above that single payer involves rationing, yet you link to a report that claims show single payer is cheaper, without noting the rationing.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, Mercatus is a right leaning libertarian organization, you dunderhead!

And so you concede it Lowe’s costs but through rationing. Which is of course why I can say it likely lowers costs via its but I still don’t like it because I find the rationing really bad.

[Malika la Maize]

Lowers

[Incunabulum]

Single payer makes health care cheaper by making it unavailable.

[Incunabulum]

And you talk like state HR departments aren't pruning health risks in state-run healthcare systems.

[Malika la Maize]

Democrats aren’t going to win the Senate in the midterms and even if they did they have several Murkowski and Collins of their own that aren’t going to vote to kill the filibuster.

[Kazinski]

We are not suffering stagflation now, and there is little danger of it.

While the Atlanta Fed estimate of 3rd qtr GDP of 4.2% is somewhere out front of other estimates, the "bluechip" estimates are still about 2.75%.

The 10 year Treasury Yield, Which is a market rate is at 4.02%, down about .75% from the beginning of the year, and should continue to decline. Mortgage rates are also down about .6% from the beginning of the year. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US

I am not going to argue the deficit is still to high but it has declined from the 6.4% of GDP it was in 2024 to an estimated 6.0-5.9%, for 2025, and an CBO estimated 5.5% for FY 2026.

And the party in power almost always gets creamed in the off year election, and has lost control of the House 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018, 2022, the only exception in more than 30 years is 2002.

But it isn't at all clear that the Dems will be able to retake the Senate over the next 4-6 years, or that every Democrat will vote to kill it, so might as well leave the filibuster intact.

[dwb68]

GDP was also growing in the late 70s. Stagflation is generally characterized by stubbornly high inflation and unemployment, regardless of GDP. Inflation is still above 3%, which makes me uncomfortable. Unemployment is not "high" at 4.2%, but it's hard to know exactly how weak the labor market really is because survey/poll data is very poor quality.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how accurate the unemployment data is at the moment, with the current rapid decline in illegal aliens altering the population base. I'm seeing reports of total employment hardly budging, but employment by citizens increasing substantially, as most of the jobs deported illegals leave are being taken by Americans.

[dwb68]

"employment by citizens increasing substantially"
Not sure I believe it frankly. Tighter employment shows up as rising wages, but wages are not rising faster than inflation (wages are based on reported payroll data and are more accurate than surveys). Even if this were true, tighter employment and 3+% inflation would be a strong case to keep interest rates where they are.

I suspect that a lot of the deportations only impact the gray economy (drugs, whatnot), not the real economy, and are unlikely to show up in real wages.

[loki13]

"I suspect that a lot of the deportations only impact the gray economy (drugs, whatnot), not the real economy, and are unlikely to show up in real wages."

Uh..... look, I can only report anecdotal data, and I don't live in a representative area. But I know a lot of employers in my area (both socially and as clients) and that is not true.

Deportations have had a massive impact on the hospitality (restaurants, hotels) sector. They have had a massive impact on the construction sector (both big construction as well as contractors etc.). They have had a massive impact on other sectors as well that you probably can think of (landscaping, cleaning, et al.). While I have no actual knowledge of this, I have heard that they have had an impact on other areas that can ripple through (meatpacking).

This has caused all sorts of bizarre impacts- an increase in hiring of high school students for restaurant and hotel jobs. A cutback in services (less cleaning, less often). There has been some upward increase in wage amounts ... but for the most part, there just isn't the margins to support it or the applicants to take those jobs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"bizarre impacts- an increase in hiring of high school students for restaurant and hotel jobs"

Hiring American teens, bizarre!

[Kazinski]

"wages are not rising faster than inflation"

That just isn't true, at least lately.

St. Louis Fed reports Real Disposable Personal Income percent by Quarter, but Y/Y from the previous year, so I'll just show Jan of every year, and the latest quarter the Fed is reporting Q1:

2022 -12.4%
2023 5.1%
2024 3.5%
2025 2%

2025 Q1 2.2

So it did take a big hit in 2022, and you can take into account the pandemic, and taking the stimulus punch bowl away, but it is going up and it the consumer has more disposable income than they had last year or pre-pandemic.

I like Disposable Personal income because its what the consumer has left over after paying the bills but Real Personal Income tells the same story so take your pick.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI

[Sarcastr0]

I'm seeing reports

Word?

[Kazinski]

We had 3 recessions from 1969 to 1980.

I hate to say this, but inflation isn't high either. It's higher than what we want, or what the fed target is, but average inflation since 1955 is ~3.5%. Everyone wants lower inflation, but it is below average now.

Stagflation was when the misery index stayed above 10 for a 12 year period starting 1973, and particularly when we were in recession. Its at about 7.5 now.

[Commenter_XY]

Some points.

One, an inflation rate of3% is not 'high'. It is low, historically.
Two, agree about deficit reduction (elimination).
Two-A, real yields on total US bond funds have declined a lot already.
Three, The Cauliflower's economic bungling raised the sea level (prices). Real increases in wages will blunt The Cauliflower effect.\
Four, there is a long way to go before the 2026 elections. An eternity, politically speaking. The Senate isn't changing hands.

Nobody knows what will happen in December (PPACA subsidy vote). But I feel pretty confident in saying we will have another shutdown in January.

[Frank Drackman]

Rocky 3 or Rocky 4??
Like my Daughters I love both, Mr. T should have gotten an Oscar for his portrayal of "Clubber" Lang ("My Prediction for the Fight?? PAIN!!") same with Dolph Lungren as Ivan "I must break you" Drago.
Went off the rails with "5" and don't even get me started with the whole "Creed" series.
"Tulsa King" is pretty good too.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

His fight with Thunderlips is great but 4 has the best dueling training montage in film imho and that gives it a slight edge.

[Frank Drackman]

"3" was the first time I'd heard of Hulk Hogan (only got the "Georgia Championship Wrestling" on our Cable system) or Mr. "I Pity the Fool!" T.
Whenever someone talks about how horrible this current generation is, I remember all the Frat Guys at Auburn trying to sound like Mr. T, saying "I Pity the Fool!!"
"4" came out fall of 85' at the height of the Cold War, I think a US Officer had been killed near the East German Border earlier that year, Terrorists were blowing up Bars in West Berlin, Terrorists murdered Leon Klinghoffer and dumped his corpse in the Med, "Rambo" had come out during the Summer, Reagan beat Cancer (we won't talk about the Alzheimers) 1985 might have been the height of Amurican Patriotism.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Hogan wrestled in Georgia Championship wrestling for a brief while but under the name Sterling Golden.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUC2EjXt2tE

[Frank Drackman]

(Johnny Carson Voice) I did not know that!

[SRG2]

I do enjoy Tulsa king.

[Malika la Maize]

This seems positive:

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to bolster national scientific research through the use of artificial intelligence.

The initiative, called the Genesis Mission, “will build an integrated A.I. platform to harness federal scientific datasets — the world’s largest collection of such datasets, developed over decades of federal investments — to train scientific foundation models and create A.I. agents to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs,” according to the order.

The Department of Energy’s national laboratories will make the data available to help automate experiments and generate predictive models for “everything from protein folding to fusion plasma dynamics,” Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, told reporters on Monday in a briefing before the executive order was publicly announced.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/us/politics/trump-ai-executive-order.html

[Sarcastr0]

I'm skeptical; while I think there are some use cases for AI in fundamental research this seems to treat it like fairy dust.

Were it up to me I'd let AI use integrate more organically into fundamental research work.

But I will admit my intuition could be quite wrong here, and I don't see any *harm* in a well funded effort in our country's fundamental research.

Though I think the damage is done to our academic research enterprise due to other admin efforts, and it's pretty dire.

[DDHarriman]

Alex,

I'll take "How do you get a Sarcastr0 to dislike a government program" for $1000 pls.

[Incunabulum]

How is the AI going to *test* hypothesis?

[Krayt]

As an aside, humanity needs to more fully adopt term limits across the board in government elected positions. Should large life extension be possible, we don't need eternal fiefdoms, to say nothing of massive thugocracies.

This means you, Congressmen and Senators.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever”

Russia, China, North Korea, "Check us out!"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika — Science really does want to understand causality. If current AI technology had general insight into causality, it could analyze its own errors, figure out why they happened, and fix the problems. I am not seeing that. Today's AI tech does not even seem to be capable to know when it makes errors. Or know anything, really.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is MTG the new Ann Coulter?

[Frank Drackman]

Irrelevant Might-have-been? Of course you could say Coulter was a Never Was, and there was Arianna Huffington already forgotten.
It's pretty obvious, Dr. Obvious, I'd hate being a Congressman (you'd hate it too) boring Committee meetings, Sub-Committee meetings, Sub-Sub-Committee meetings, pre-meetings before the meetings, then you've got Uncle Eddie's claim that the VA reduced his Pension because the plate in his head isn't big enough, all for a pitiful $174K/year, I don't care if you do get the free health care and Bribes, and that DC Commute? it was horrible when I lived there in the 90's, pretty sure it hasn't improved any.

Frank

[Kazinski]

Coulter did have 3 NYTimes #1 "non-fiction" bestsellers.

I won't totally rule out MTG ever putting out a book with her name on it, but I'd be skeptical of her actually writing it.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I'd be skeptical of her actually writing it."

Or reading it.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe she’ll say the “N-word” like Barry O did on his “Wet Dreams of my African Warlord Father”

Frank

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Oh, she could write a cookbook:

"Gazpacho Tactics and Other Kitchen Secrets."

[bernard11]

Glad you put "non-fiction" in quotes.

[Malika la Maize]

Lemurs are charismatic primates known for their large, soulful eyes and long, fluffy tails. They are beloved by children, who are entertained by lemur characters in cartoons and picture books.

But in their native Madagascar, the endangered animals are facing a growing threat: City-dwellers with cash to spare love to eat them. They say that the meat from fruit-eating lemur species tastes sweet and that consuming these primates promotes strength and good health. The meat from these tree-dwellers is valued for its cleanliness and “purity.” The startling revelation comes from the first-ever assessment of Madagascar’s urban lemur trade. Conducted over the past four years, it concludes that more than 10,000 lemurs were sold for pricey dishes across 17 cities in the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/22/science/lemurs-madagascar-eating.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's what nearly made the Puffin extinct -- it wasn't the hats as much as they were tasty eating.

They only survived on two remote ledges too far offshore and too hard to get to for anyone to hunt them there.

[Kazinski]

Puffin's aren't extinct, they aren't even endangered.

[Zarniwoop]

They only survived on two remote ledges too far offshore and too hard to get to for anyone to hunt them there.

Fresh from Grampa Ed's posterior orifice! The three different species of Puffins, currently with widespread distribution in both the Pacific and Atlantic, only survived on "two remote ledges"! Cite needed, Grampa.

I suspect that Grampa is confusing "one specific Puffin population on a single island, that he read about 30 years ago" with "actual data about worldwide Puffin populations".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Matinicus Rock
Machias Seal Island

That's two -- circa 1970. The population has recovered.

[Zarniwoop]

Two sites where they did exist, great. Ooo! Gramps thinks he has data!

Now show your work that those were the *only* places there were puffins. Your claim:

They only survived on two remote ledges too far offshore and too hard to get to for anyone to hunt them there.

Ope, here's another one: Iceland. They didn't go extinct in Iceland.

Or across much of the Pacific. And the Atlantic. You know ... much of the northern hemisphere.

Sheesh, at some point I start to wonder if being so deliberately stupidly wrong means you're actually a super-deep cover SOROS AGENT!!1!

... prove me wrong.

[Krayt]

I wonder what the taste like.

[Michael P]

Three Jacksonville (FL) teens beat a homeless anecdote to death, in three successive attacks that leftists will dismiss as unrepresentative of actual behavior patterns.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2025/11/10/homeless-man-dies-from-3-beatings-on-the-same-night-in-downtown-jacksonville/87153012007/
https://www.jaxsheriff.org/News/Three-Teens-Charged-in-Deadly-Attack.aspx

[Malika la Maize]

Leftists tend to be pretty up to defending homeless people from physical attacks. Maryland counts attacks motivated by anti-homeless bias as a hate crime that can get a sentence enhancement. Iirc several other blue states do as well.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they should stop spending money on drugs and get homes.

[Sarcastr0]

What pattern are you arguing the left denies is happening?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Race, race race. It's all about race.

[jb]

It must be kind of sad to live your life viewing basically everything through a partisan lens. I really have no idea what this has to do with left vs. right, but it is very sad for the homeless guy.

[hobie]

Whenever a hayseed here brings of local street crime, I have to assume its a black on white thing. Without looking at the article, am I correct?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Exactly correct.

[apedad]

Trump Media stock crashes to all-time lows, wiping out $5B in first family wealth during crypto slide

Trump Media & Technology Group, the crypto and social media company controlled by members of the first family, has seen its stock price plummet to all-time lows — wiping out more than $5 billion in wealth for the Trumps as cryptocurrencies continue their slide.

Shares of Trump Media, which trades under the ticker DJT, have fallen nearly 70% this year — 34.6% of that just the past month, according to Barron’s.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/19/business/trump-media-stock-crashes-to-all-time-lows-wiping-out-5b-in-first-family-wealth-during-crypto-slide/

$5 BILLION loss?!?!?

#ETTD

[Malika la Maize]

Meh, he’ll just have to do more business in the Gulf States while giving them fighter jets and such.

[hobie]

Historically, the world's foremost promotor of terrorism worldwide - Saudi Arabia - is about to get nuclear technology as it quo. What could possibly go wrong?

[Riva]

Maybe you noticed, but Bitcoin in general is not doing all that well. I note also that the Harvard endowment was big into Bitcoin. I wonder how many billions they’ve lost?

[Armchair]

To repeat some important considerations. So, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie disqualified a US Attorney recently. Her argument was that

"In sum, the text, structure, and history of section 546 point to one conclusion: the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes section 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate."

(emphasis added).

That's fascinating. So, 120 days for an acting US Attorney (USA). Period. Then it's the court's decision. My thoughts instantly go to the the US attorney for DC. Specifically, Channing Phillips for the period from March 3, 2021 – November 5, 2021. Phillips was appointed as acting US Attorney for DC by the Biden administration. Not the district court. But....prior to Phillips, the DC USA was ALSO an acting USA. Michael Sherwin...for the period from May 19, 2020 – March 3, 2021. Which means...Channing Phillips nomination as an acting USA was illegal. The 120 day period had long passed. And most (if not all) of the decisions Phillips made as USA were illegitimate.

That of course is just one example, there may be more.

Anyone see any issues with this logic?

[Zarniwoop]

The difference between Sherwin —> Phillips is that Sherwin was appointed by Trump, and Phillips was Biden’s first appointment to the post as part of a new administration.

So structurally it doesn’t raise the same “successive appointments to evade the Adive and Consent requirement” issue. I agree that it’s a possible gap in the statutory drafting, which doesn’t contemplate changeovers in administration. And structurally, we wouldn’t want an outgoing administration to be able hobble the incoming one by purposefully running the 120 day clock right before Jan 20, and thus deny a new president any ability to choose new temp USAs.

Regardless, Phillips did serve for well over 120 days. Have you confirmed that his appointment was not ratified by the DC District Court at ~120 days, as EDVA did with Halligan’s predecessor, Eric Siegel? Could the DC D.Ct. have ratified shortly after Phillips’ initial appointment?

[Zarniwoop]

Ope Erik Siebert. Need more coffee, should check names before hitting submit.

https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/news/appointment-erik-s-siebert-interim-us-attorney-effective-may-21-2025

[Riva]

Good point and one I hope the administration raises on appeal. And here the position was vacant after the resignation and the statute plainly allowed Halligan’s appointment by its plain terms. They should also note that section 546(d) is an affront to the separation of powers notwithstanding flawed lower court rulings. Of course, the administration also has 6 months to obtain a new indictment, if they choose to go this route. Could they do both?

[ducksalad]

How is "we have evidence that someone broke a law and no one noticed" a relevant point? That's no defense.

It would only be a point if some challenged Phillip's appointment and a federal court upheld it.

[Riva]

It should be referenced to highlight the lawless political motivations of the lower courts. The gross errors meriting reversal will of course form the bulk of the appeal.

[David Nieporent]

The statute does not allow — plainly or otherwise — the president to evade the confirmation process by appointing anyone he feels like and then just keep reappointing them.

As for 546, even if your dogmatic incantations about "separation of powers" ever had merit, the constitution expressly says that Congress can give courts the power of appointment. The text of the constitution of course supersedes a vague doctrine that isn't even mentioned in the document.

[ducksalad]

Don't you and I agree that the Biden administration did a lot of illegal things that exceeded presidential authority? You've found some more examples. Judge Currie, it seems, agrees with us.

It all seems logically consistent to me.

You didn't ask why didn't Currie do anything about those others, because you're a smart man and know very well that she can only rule on cases and controversies that are brought to her.

Maybe if it's not too late, the people who were prosecuted by Channing Phillips from March-November 2021 can get their convictions overturned. That would be a good and appropriate thing. It's sad that their attorneys didn't notice this problem with the government's case, but attorneys often do make such mistakes.

Also, Currie's logic that the law can't be interpreted in a way that would give presidents (not just Trump, all presidents) a way to completely evade the requirement for Senate consent is excellent. You would have agreed if it had come up under Biden, and since you are not a hypocrite, you agree now.

So again, we all think alike and there is no inconsistency. The logic is just fine.

[jb]

"Maybe if it's not too late, the people who were prosecuted by Channing Phillips from March-November 2021 can get their convictions overturned. That would be a good and appropriate thing. It's sad that their attorneys didn't notice this problem with the government's case, but attorneys often do make such mistakes."

Other courts have found that even if the US Attorney was appointed illegally (as with, e.g., Alina Habba) , if other attorneys were generally handling the case, the fact that the US Attorney wasn't appointed legally isn't enough of a defect to throw out the whole case. For Comey and James in particular, though, Halligan basically handled the case completely on her own so this backstop doesn't exist.

So even if Phillips had been appointed illegally, it's not clear those defendants would be entitled to the same relief as Comey and James.

[ducksalad]

While we're on the topic, IANAL but I found this online:

18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Since we're all reasonable people here, we can agree that prior to the ruling Halligan was simply mistaken and of course shouldn't be prosecuted. But if she keeps going to the office after the ruling and acting like she's in charge, is she committing this crime?

[OpinionsVary]

Maybe but remember the AG attempted to use her time machine to fix all of this and, while the time machine part didn't work out, the AG did name her a special attorney. Presumably she actually is that going forward (if not retroactively).

[loki13]

I think we can all agree Halligan is a special attorney.

Very, very special.

[DDHarriman]

What's going to happen to the Seditious Six?

[apedad]

Nothing since in their video, titled "Don’t Give Up the Ship," they appealled to military members to "stand up for our laws" and "refuse unlawful orders."

Nothing illegal about that.

[Armchair]

Not quite. See, when you point out orders that "may be illegal" and demand officers "do their duty" and "refuse illegal orders"...that looks like calling for them to disobey orders.

And that actually is illegal, at least for Kelly.

[Absaroka]

"that looks like calling for them to disobey orders"

No, it looks a lot like calling for them to disobey **illegal** orders. Which has been a fundamental part of US military ethics at least since since WWII. 'I was just following orders' was rejected at Nuremberg. It's hard to believe this is controversial.

[John 4]

Orwellian

[not guilty]

War=peace
Freedom=slavery
Ignorance=strength

G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four (1949).

Orders that "may be illegal" and demand officers "do their duty" and "refuse illegal orders"=calling for them to disobey orders.

Armchair (November 25, 2025).

Armchair loves Big Brother.

[Michael P]

When asked to give examples of any illegal orders, at least two of the six (Elissa Slotkin and Jason Crow) admitted they couldn't back up their advocacy of mutiny and sedition.

[apedad]

So? Again, where's the seditious activity?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not mutiny and seditious to disobey an illegal order, is it?

[David Nieporent]

It's amazing to watch the MAGA fake talking point ecosystem in action. One high volume posting grifter posts something retarded, and then thousands of people will post it themselves — pretending that they had thought of it — as if it were insightful.

Yes, they didn't identify an illegal order. WTF does that have to do with anything? Are you completely unaware of the concept of a conditional/hypothetical in the English language? If an unlawful order is given, people are not obligated to follow it. That statement in no way even implies, let alone asserts, that such an order has already been given.

And of course it is neither mutiny nor sedition, but duty, to disobey illegal orders.

[Armchair]

Kelly may be in a good deal of trouble, as he's still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It makes things like encouraging mutiny and disobeying orders very illegal.

[apedad]

§892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation

Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

----
I note that you omitted the word "lawful," i.e., " . . . violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation . . . . "

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's probably a crappy thing to do that could encourage service members to question orders and place themselves in legal jeopardy, but the video isn't illegal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Following unlawful orders also puts them in legal jeopardy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

For that to happen, the MJ would have to find that the order was unlawful, and the Court Martial panel (consisting of military members) would have to find BRD that they knew the order was unlawful, or a person of ordinary sense would have known the order was unlawful. I'd say that's much lower risk.

I'd say that there's a decent chance that an MJ finds orders along these lines lawful, in which case the defendant is cooked.

[Armchair]

Almost all orders are considered lawful. It must be "clearly" unlawful in order to be disobeyed. If there is a question of whether it is lawful or not...it still needs to be obeyed.

That's where Kelly is getting into hot water. He's insinuating that these "maybe" orders are unlawful.

What's an example of "maybe" orders for the army....

1) Shoot that person who is running away!

Follow or not? The context here is unclear. They aren't surrendering...that's for sure. Are they running away to get a weapon? Report your position? You don't know. Disobeying such an order is unwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Insinuating...maybe...context is unclear.

You've got nothing, man.

Maybe another hypothetical will be the ticket!

[Magister]

It's like a 13 year old arguing wildly unlikely scenarios to push back against his parent's ordinary rules.

[David Nieporent]

Almost all orders are considered lawful. It must be "clearly" unlawful in order to be disobeyed. If there is a question of whether it is lawful or not...it still needs to be obeyed.

I do not believe that this is correct. You are confusing two different concepts: when a soldier can be prosecuted for obeying an order, and when a soldier can be prosecuted for disobeying an order.

If the order is unlawful, the soldier can always disobey it; the UCMJ makes it an offense to disobey a lawful order. If he is court martialed for disobeying, then he can use "the order was unlawful" as a defense. The issue is that he had better be correct; otherwise, he's guilty. Thus, as a matter of prudence one should obey all orders that aren't clearly unlawful.

On the other hand, if the soldier is court martialed or prosecuted in a civilian court for obeying an order, he can use as a defense that he was following orders unless it would've been clear to an ordinary observer that the order was unlawful.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You know how the military hasn't managed to successfully try, convict, and sentence Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after 24 years? Even though he definitely did 9/11?

What do you think is going to happen when they try to court martial a popular U.S. Senator, combat pilot, astronaut, on some tendentious theory?

[Riva]

All of these seditious pieces of shit deserve the contempt of the country for encouraging the military to adopt their “resistance,” but I hope at least Kelly is courtmartialed.

[Malika la Maize]

Everyone should adopt resistance to illegal orders.

[Riva]

What fucking illegal orders? These seditious piece of shit can't identify any and neither can fucking stupid antisemitic JV parrot trolls.

[Glaucomatose]

So your point is that they haven't actually told people to disobey any actual orders?

So what are you whining about, exactly?

[Riva]

The pieces of shit are, quite intentionally, seeking to disrupt the chain of command. There are NO illegal orders. I don't ever recall, through the national disgraces of the Obama and Biden regimes, where anyone, in any party, ever conducted themselves in such a reprehensible and dangerous manner. As noted above, Kelly should be recalled and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny. Which is what those fuckers were doing.

[OpinionsVary]

Why does it matter if there were no illegal orders in the past? Such orders would already have been given and followed/not followed by the point the statement was made. Surely the point about warning about illegal orders only makes sense about orders that might be given in the future? Or are you saying they were telling soldiers to retroactively ignore past orders. Only the AG has a time machine unfortunately!

[Riva]

There are NO illegal orders. Orders are PRESUMED to be legal. These pieces of shit are tying to sabotage the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command. Again, Kelly should be recalled and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

[OpinionsVary]

Oh, do you have access to the Pam Bondi's time machine too? Is it a time share or more or a quid pro quo kind of thing? Because without that, how can you saw there will be no illegal orders in the future?

Or are you arguing more in a general sense - that no order from the president can ever be illegal? Because, if so, that's just not true as a matter of black letter law.

[ducksalad]

Or are you arguing more in a general sense - that no order from the president can ever be illegal?

He might be. Riva has some crazy thing about the vesting clause that he repeats from time to time.

[Riva]

My argument is quite clear and has been presented multiple times in this comment section, even though the trolls here pretend to ignore it. As noted, repeatedly, there are NO unlawful orders. These seditious pieces of shit are trying to undermined the Trump administration by disrupting the lawful chain of command. The military cannot function if soldiers adopt the resistance tactics advocated by these fuckers in the senate, and these fuckers are quite aware of that fact. Kelly can and should be recalled to service and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

[Glaucomatose]

"Orders are PRESUMED to be legal" by whom?

If an illegal order is given, what happens next?

[OpinionsVary]

I don't think Riva understands the concept of liner time. He doesn't seem to understand that things can happen in the future. So he can't answer that.

[Riva]

I don't think idiotic trolls understand the chain of command. The pieces of seditious pieces of shit from the senate sure do. That's what they want to disrupt.

[Bob from Ohio]

"liner time"

Does that take place on a ship?

[hobie]

Making military personnel murder civilians in boats and on the streets of American cities is definitely putting those personnel at extreme risk for trials come 2029. Kelly's PSA is trying to help them avoid that fate.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Even if it is ultimately decided that the attacks on the boats are unlawful, no service member below the rank of O7 should fear punishment for actions declared to be legal by the entire chain of command.

[not guilty]

"Even if it is ultimately decided that the attacks on the boats are unlawful, no service member below the rank of O7 should fear punishment for actions declared to be legal by the entire chain of command."

I don't disagree. I do believe, however, that the higher ups who gave illegal orders for our service members to commit murder on the high seas (18 U.S.C. § 1111(b)) should be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) (commanding unlawful conduct) and/or 956(a)(1) (making it a felony to conspire within the United States “to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder … if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” if “any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy”.

[David Nieporent]

The test is whether a "person of ordinary sense and understanding" would have known the orders to be unlawful — not the number of people who endorsed the order.

[Swede425]

They weren't being seditious.
They were being cute. They thought they were being clever. And look how well it worked.
Now they're all like "I'm not aware of any illegal orders being issued by Trump" because it turns out they were neither.
Republicans should answer with:
"Democrats, don't drink and drive"
"Democrats, don't beat your wives"
"Democrats, don't sell fentanyl"
"Democrats, don't hump goats"
"Democrats, don't go to Epstein Island" (woops)
"Democrats, don't support violence against law enforcement" (woops)
"Democrat, don't fuck each other in the ass in Congressional meeting rooms" (woops)
The list goes on and on. No actual act need apply. Just good, solid reminders. And, hey, who doesn't need a good reminder from time to time?

[Absaroka]

If President Ocasio-Cortez threatens to prosecute anyone for saying any of those things, I'll be right here to criticize her for that (inter alia!).

[LawTalkingGuy]

This list is hilarious because there are examples of republicans doing these things to counter with. I mean your first two examples include: Mike Johnson’s Chief of Staff (got a DUI) and Cory Mills (credibly accused of DV).

[Swede425]

It's meant to be hilarious, so thank you.
The point being that many are generic "don't do this" kind of stuff.
Most people would understand not to do these things.
So maybe no warning needed?
Our "clever" democrats are now on record (or refusing to elaborate) that Trump hasn't done anything to warrant their warning to the military. Now they're like "Um, it's just a generic warning. What? Can't a gal give generic warnings to the military? Sheesh!"
I don't know what they thought they were going to accomplish, but I doubt it was having to do interviews claiming that Trump hasn't issued any specific illegal order to the military.
Or was it? In which case; thanks?

[Absaroka]

Maybe they all just had to listen to AFN a lot.

(AFN is the Armed Forces Network which is big on PSAs)

(Big Dos Gringos fan here!)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks Absaroka. Excellent.
Unfortunately, it appears you need a Department of Defence affiliation to use the app.

[David Nieporent]

Dems: "You don't have to follow illegal orders."
MAGA: "Yes you do!"

Swede: "Why do people need to be told that? It's obvious."

[ducksalad]

They weren't being seditious.
They were being cute. They thought they were being clever.

If Trump and his online brigades had taken this line, they would have been the winners in this exchange. Maybe they should hire you to replace Leavitt or Cheung.

And look how well it worked.

Actually, it worked pretty well. People want an example of an illegal order? Trump just provided one. If he had converted his tweet that the congressmen should executed for sedition into an actual order to the military, that would indeed be exactly the type of illegal order that should be disobeyed.

Aside from that, the congressmen got some camera time, and Trump's raving outbursts on the matter are more material for JDV's file, the one he keeps at home labeled "25 47".

----
(Alternative theory: the congressmen and Trump conspired to create a distraction from the Epstein files, which they are both interested in keeping out of the news. Still worked out pretty well.)

[Swede425]

LOL!
"If" is doing the job of Atlas in your scenario.
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
In normal families, anyway.

[wvattorney13]

IOW, if Trump had done something wholly different than he actually did, then that would be an example of an illegal order.

Okay. I guess if Kelly had said to disobey a legal order and directed at a service member who was deciding whether to follow that order, he would be guilty of a crime as well.

And if I shot my neighbor I would too.

[ducksalad]

Yes, and what's the problem?

A bunch of commenters here are demanding evidence that Trump gave an illegal order. It's a disingenuous request because it's irrelevant. It's not only perfectly fine but extremely commendable to remind people of their duty should some future situation occur.

They can separately demand some examples of orders that would be illegal. When someone provides such an example of an order that would be illegal, it's disingenuous to deflect back to ha-ha that didn't happen.

It's like people here don't understand the word "would". But they're just pretending to not understand.

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of future iterations...An example of an unlawful order might be a US POTUS knowingly ordering a drone strike on an American citizen, deliberately killing them. Oh, on US soil.

That would never happen. Or would it?

[Sarcastr0]

There was an AUMF. A law.

I think it was on shaky legal ground, but there was a legal grounds.

You've been told this a number of times.

[Riva]

"Cute" tactics like this may earn the fucker Kelly a court martial for suborning mutiny.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

In your dreams, perhaps, but not in real life. Kelly is at absolutely no risk of being subjected to a court martial. Or even of a Court Marshal, if your MTG. All this BS is just MAGA noise. Exactly the same as when you knobs went goofy over the 86 47 non-threat.

[Riva]

Aren’t death threats just so goofy?

[hobie]

J6ers were just following orders and look where it got them. Most of Trump's attorneys have been ruined. Obeying orders from Trump typically destroys people.

[Riva]

Protesters were not following any “orders.” And the only comment from the president was to go “peacefully and patriotically.” On the other hand there were present that day hundreds of federal operatives. What orders they were all under has yet to be fully disclosed.

[ReaderY]

A federal bankruptcy judge for the Western District of Kentucky has held that the City of Oakland’s attempts to use its regulatory and political persuasion powers to stop a politically unpopular coal terminal in Oakland’s port represents tortious interference with a contract.

In holding that attempts at government regulation of a business constitute tortious interference with it, this judge effectively grants the company involved a kind of title of nobility. It has a sort of laise majeste that the little people and their little government interfere with at their peril. If you attempt to mess with a corporation, if you even bad-mouth it, you can be held liable for any damage it suffers.

I think this ruling is completely contrary to a number of constitutional provisions, not least the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It grossly interferes with the right and power of the people to have a government. Government may not have the power to issue a particular regulation. But discussing the matter and attempting to regulate can never be tortious interference, just as saying a particular business activity is bad for the public imterest can never be libel.

Given the obvious publc health, safety, and environmental implications of storing and transporting large amounts of coal at a single location, there was an obvious rational basis for Oakland’s actions, whether or not one agrees with the policy , and whether or not state or federal law preempted the City’s efforts to regulate based on it.

Indeed, a case like this richly illustrates the problems with the Court’s animosity jurisprudence. ANYTHING anyone disagrees with or finds inconvenient can be characterized as anomosity. The fact that a judge could be persuaded by a coal company that the City of Oakland acted against a coal terminal because it had irrational and inexplicable animosity to coal - “I do not love thee, Dr. Fell, the reason why I cannot tell” - well illustrates why courts need to be vigilant against the natural human tendency that, as Upton Sinclair put it, it is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

It is a characteristic of dysfunction in a democratic republic that each side of an issue is quick to accuse its political opponents of having the opinion they have only because they are full of irrational hate. It is the job of judges to temper these tendencies. It is a betrayal of their role to constitutionalize and put their imprimatur behind them.

I think this case illustrates this as well as any other.

[Bwaaah]

"Given the obvious public health, safety, and environmental implications of storing and transporting large amounts of coal at a single location"

Obvious? What implications? They're not even burning the coal.

When did handling of rocks become a serious "health, safety and environmental" issue? (Answer: When dogmatic unhinged fossil-fuel-hating environmentalists entered the room to say "NO TO ALL OF IT; THE DISCUSSION IS OVER!")

[ReaderY]

Thank you for contributing to my post by illustrating how judges aren’t supposed to behave. Plenty of people of reason, agree with them or not, think coal in not just inert rocks (ever hear of black lung disease?) in addition to its environmental efffects. It would be sufficient merely to regard the use of coal as immoral, which the Oakland folks very likely do. I’ve defended the constitutionality of legislating right-wing moral values. But with the goose comes the gander, and left-wing people get the same opportunity to legislate left values when they are in the majority.

As you well illustrate, it is those most blind to reason are least able to see it, particularly when doing so would be inconvenient, and hence who are quickest to claim that views they merely disagree with are animosity-based and/or completely irrational.

This is true on the left. But it’s also true on the right.

[Absaroka]

"coal in not just inert rocks (ever hear of black lung disease?)"

Sure, but you can also get silicosis, but that doesn't justify banning beaches or cement. And you can get brown lung from cotton, but that doesn't justify forbidding shipping blue jeans through a port.
"Sawdust is an IARC group 1 Carcinogen", but that doesn't mean banning wood products is smart. Etc, etc.

[ReaderY]

Yes it does. Banning any of those things would absolutely pass rational basis. If a municipality attempted to ban them, it might not have the authority to do so under state or federal law, but it would be legitimately attempting to engage in public health, safety, welfare, and morals regulation, not tortious interference with a business contract.

Legislation does not have to be wise or politic - “smart” - to be legitimate.

[Absaroka]

To be clear, I wasn't discussing whether such a law did or did not meet the rational base test; I was addressing whether they made sense.

[Bwaaah]

I too was not commenting about law. I was commenting about Reader_Y's presentation of his argument in which he asserted that there are "obvious public health, safety, and environmental implications" to operating the terminal.

That statement isn't one of law, but is one of rhetorical overreach (as was his example of black lung disease as an obvious risk). I suspect R_Y preferred to overstate the degree to which the state was clearing the "rational basis" bar. He may also just believe his alleged magnitude of risk.

Again, I don't pretend to know what that bar is as a matter of law (although I've seen numerous examples of the "rational basis" bar being disturbingly low). And as R_Y seems to say in his legalistic opinion, "It would be sufficient merely to regard the use of coal as immoral, which the Oakland folks very likely do."

That sounds almost theocratic to me. But like I said: I understand that the "rational basis" bar can be disturbingly low.

[Bwaaah]

Sorry I messed up ReaderY's name (not "Reader_Y"). Nothing intended.

[Michael P]

The merits of Oakland's attempt to cancel its contract or development of the terminal were settled years ago, against the city. The CA Supreme Court declined to hear the city's appeal. This case is only about whether Oakland is liable in the Kentucky conpany's bankruptcy.

[Michael P]

Is your hypothesis that having a rational basis is sufficient to bypass the Contract Clause of the US Constitution?

[wvattorney13]

How is coal "immoral"? You are losing me there.

[Mr. Bumble]

In his world use of all fossil fuels is "immoral" except for those that keep him warm (or cool) and power his computer, so as to comment here.

[Bwaaah]

For many people now, all fossil fuel production is immoral. It's "destroying our environment."

At the same time, consumption of fossil fuels is necessary, and it benefits individual people, not corporations, so that benefit of fossil fuels is not infected with the immorality of commerce.

I think it's a vibe thing. Kind of like drugs, but steeped in allusions to logic. I really don't get it.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"For many people now, all fossil fuel production is immoral. "

Of the fossil fuels, coal (from start to finish) inflicts the most health and environmental costs mostly avoided by those who profit. As an example of costs inflicted, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0XzWdHiCLk&t=332s.

Personally, I would not have thought to label the coal industry from top to bottom as immoral, but I understand how some would. Particularly considering that in today's economy with the growing use of alternative sources of energy and the growing use of natural gas to generate electricity that coal is largely obsolete.

[Sarcastr0]

You're assuming positivism when he means normative:

"I’ve defended the constitutionality of legislating right-wing moral values. But with the goose comes the gander, and left-wing people get the same opportunity to legislate left values when they are in the majority."

[apedad]

Just wondering why a federal bankruptcy judge for the Western District of Kentucky decided this case when the two parties (Oakland, CA, and Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC, principal address in Los Angeles, CA) are both located in Cali.

[ReaderY]

I imagine it was filed there because of a greater likelihood of a favorable ruling.

[Michael P]

The other party to the contract (with which Oakland tortiously interfered) is a Kentucky coal mining company that filed for bankruptcy -- because they couldn't ship their coal to Chinese buyers through the terminal that Oakland permitted.

[Michael P]

It grants a title of nobility? Granting redress for government interference violates the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? These are remarkably dumb arguments even by ReaderY standards.

Did the court even characterize Oakland's animosity as "irrational and inexplicable", or is that another ReaderY fabrication?

[ReaderY]

It’s the business of government to interfere. That’s what legislation is.

It characterized it as wrongful, which implies it’s not legitimate legislation.

[Michael P]

"which implies it’s not legitimate legislation" is an awfully big walk-back from this decision granting a title of nobility or violating the right to petition for redress.

[wvattorney13]

What specific title of nobility does the company have that the court gave it? Prince? Duke?

[Bob from Ohio]

You forgot "a sort of laise majeste"

Seems that ReaderY's psychotic break has extended beyond just Trump.

[Kenneth Almquist]

If you want to talk about a federal case, it’s helpful to link to the docket on courtlistener. For this case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68326645/insight-terminal-solutions-llc-v-city-of-oakland/

Docket entry 56 begins with a summary of the cases (paragraphs 1 through 12). The city of Oakland signed a contract with OBIT to operate a port. OBIT in turn signed a contract with ITS, the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff is asking for damages because it was harmed by the failure of Oakland to fulfill its contractual obligations to OBIT.

I’m not sure where “regulatory and political persuasion powers” fit into this case, because breaching the contract with OBIT was neither of those.

[ReaderY]

Professor Somin a few days ago compared the Russia-US “peace plan” to the Munich Agreement.

This is a bad analogy. At Munich, as at Potsdam later, the Western allies made a common decision. A bad decision, but a common one. While they made what they thought was a peace that turned out to be a very temporary truce, they did not destroy their alliance with each other.

No such thing happened here. The far better historical analogy is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Russia and Germany engaged in an exclusive bilateral negotiation resulting in Russia switching sides, completely abandoning its former allies, and agreeing to carve up Poland, a country it had previously agreed to protect. This action changed its entire propaganda line. While before communist mouthpieces spewed out a line supporting a common front against fascism, they henceforth favored strict pacifism.

Here too, the United States’s actions can only be interpreted as switching sides, abandoning its former allies, and cozying up to its former enemies.

One wonders what real estate concessions Trump was offered in exchange for rubber-stamping a Russian-authored plan parts of which were rather badly translated from the Russian original. Hotels? Cryptocurrency riches?

At any rate, this action singlehandedly marks the effective death of NATO as an organization with common goals. While still retaining trappings of its democratic origins in domestic matters, the United States has by its action officially cast its lot with the world’s authoritarian empires, abandoning its former common ties to the world’s liberal democracies and signaling the formation of a new Holy Alliance reminiscent of the pact among Prussia, Austria, and Russia to contain liberalism, punish ethnic groups and ideologies fomenting trouble, and ensure the future of absolute, religion-focused Divine-right autocratic rule in the early to mid 19th Century.

So far as foreign policy is concerned, this is the single most profound act Trump has ever done to not just signal a complete shift in the fundamental nature and values of this country, but to create a fait accompli leaving a mark on the world that can never be undone and will ensure the world, and this country, will never be able to return to the way things were before.

[Riva]

Wow. The Administration is now Nazi Germany. TDS on steroids.

[ReaderY]

Wow. Such little reading comprehension, let alone knowledge of history, that you didn’t even notice that the comparator in my post was Russia, the country that switched sides.

Definitely says something. Not much thought goes into what you write before you get to the TDS part, is there?

[jb]

It mostly just shows that Riva's pattern recognition is not that good.

[Riva]

I see, so in citing he Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement between NAZI GERMANY and the USSR, placing the US in the position of Nazi Germany, you in no way intended any comparison to Nazis. Of course, because no one on the left is incessantly and mindlessly bleating out Nazi analogies daily.

[Riva]

Actually my error, there is new twist in this badly thought out TDS fantasy analogy. This time the Administration is not Nazi Germany, its the USSR cooperating with Nazi Germany, and the former (well in name at least) USSR is now Nazi Germany (notwithstanding most of the neo nazis are actually in Ukraine) but whatever.

A dizzying TDS tirade. But my apologies for the mischaracterization. See trolls, I acknowledge errors.

[Krayt]

Wow. The Administration is now Nazi Germany. TDS on steroids.

Un
Fucking
Believable

Putin's rationalization, we need to protect Russian ethnics nationals there, is straight out of Hitler's claims to the Sudetenland.

Literally just change two proper nouns.

Churchill once said Chamberlain wanted to give up land to avoid war, yet he will have war. Trump seems offended and shocked the tyrant is not being magnanimous in domination, but seeking to crush his opposition at a moment of disadvantage, the usual and correct strategic thinking. And the disadvange of Ukraine, well, we saw that on TV some months ago.

Chamberlain at least knew what he was doing was wrong, but probably felt no option. He sure as hell wasn't secretly hoping Hitler did well.

Or overtly hoping, as people around here through Tucker apparently do.

TDS? Now there's some something-DS! American politics is so poisoned against the other side, you look fondly on Hitleresque cloned behaviors.

[Riva]

Get back to me when you deranged TDS afflicted fuckers get your insulting labels straight. It's giving me a headache.

[Bwaaah]

Your doubling down with another TDS accusation didn't answer Krayt's concern. (And I'm not aware of him showing signs of TDS.)

That's a swing and a miss.

[ReaderY]

It’s not just that he doth protest too much. It’s the whole manner of his writing, including his protests. He doth protest with a sneer and a snarl remarkably reminiscent of that to which he is protesting being compared.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/25/nx-s1-5615164/pentagon-scouting-hegseth-cut-ties

In a draft memo to Congress, which sources shared with NPR but which has not yet been sent, Hegseth criticizes Scouting for being "genderless" and for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.

The military has provided support to the Scouts for more than 100 years, assistance that was formalized in 1937. But in one memo, Hegseth says, "The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys."

MAGA continues it's war on American institutions for not being like they were in some utopian imagined 1950s America.

Hegseth's pettiness seems the most pathetic of all the Cabinet wankers.

[Riva]

It wasn’t always. After being corrupted by the gay/trans insanity, it is now. But just my view, I would not, on principle, accept the biased interpretations of PBS or little communist girls.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Scouts is, and always has been, a collection of misfits and weirdos. Source: Eagle Scout, former BSA camp staffer, and 2x National Camp School graduate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for coming out.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, I'd say no more misfits and weirdos than most other groups of adolescents that spend full days together, but YMMV.

[Frank Drackman]

I got out after 3 years at the "Second Class" Scout level, which was actually better than your average Scout got to. Alot harder to get Merit Badges in the 70's, you'd have to call (on this thing we called a Telephone) the "Advisor", meet with him, fulfill all of the ridiculous requirements (I remember the "Aviation" badge required you to schedule a meeting with the Director of your local Airport, arrange to spend a shift in the control tower, not easy at an Air Force base in the 1970's)
I ended up only getting that one because my Dad was a Pilot and was able to check off a lot of the boxes, only other Badges I got were the ones you could get at Summer Camp (Should have been one for getting beat up by the Older Scouts)
Seriously, even back then I thought the "Explorer" Scouts, who were Juniors or Seniors in Highschool were Creepy (hence the beating ups) even worse were the Adults who volunteered to go to our Summer Camp.
I was probably the most "Normal" of anyone, if that tells you anything.

Frank

[John 4]

Frank, you crashed out of scouting, because you couldn’t get the grammar badge.

[Frank Drackman]

Fun-Knee, well there was one for “Reading” which I earned because of my love of literature and the “Advisor” was this hot Officers wife. Think I was the only one in out Troop to get that one.

Frank

[MoreCurious]

"I was probably the most "Normal" of anyone, if that tells you anything."

Something's wrong: for the first time ever I actually chuckled at something Frank wrote.

[Zarniwoop]

Scouts is, and always has been, a collection of misfits and weirdos. Source: Eagle Scout, former BSA camp staffer, and 2x National Camp School graduate.

Can confirm. Only made it to Star Scout myself; I moved around way too much (state to state, and internationally) to have consistent involvement, and deprioritized scouting in 10th grade). But yah, lot of smart/interesting/misfits/weirdos in my experience.

The folks I've reconnected with decades later ... are still weirdos. Smart interesting weirdos, who are surprisingly successful in actual life.

[Sarcastr0]

I will always treasure the memory of the guy who thought a can of corned beef was a pretty clever choice for a tin foil dinner.

We didn't notice him toss it into the fire, but someone spotted the potential beef bomb in time.

[wvattorney13]

I guess if you find that 2019 is a utopian imagined 1950s America, you would be right. Otherwise, nothing.

[Michael P]

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/home-depot-ice-scraper-protests-anti-immigration-enforcement-los-angeles/

Which of our resident loons organized this brilliant protest against government power by means of wasting time and money at a private business that wants to sell stuff to the people the protesters claim to support -- and derives no direct benefit from the government action the loons are protesting?

[Mr. Bumble]

Noticeably lacking are any comments on the "Epstein Files".
Is the subject as dead as Epstein (who did not kill himself)?

[ThePublius]

Everyone went quiet when it turned out it was all Democrats connected to Epstein.

[Estragon]

I’ve lost count of how many times “Epstein is over” has appeared in this space. Maxwell is still at Bryant. So it’s not over for her! Any assertion that this is “over” has to account for her. She wants out! It’ll be back soon enough, which will give you two yet another opportunity to attempt to self-soothe with the “all Democrats” trolling.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your concern for Maxwell is noted (hopefully she does not, not commit suicide).
Also, I did not say "Epstein is over" only commented on the lack of comments on the subject.

[Estragon]

My “concern” for Maxwell is that we appear to be giving unusually favorable treatment to a convicted sex trafficker for reasons that, as far as I can tell, have never been fully or even partially explained. I can assure you given her background that she wants out of Texas before she is too old to enjoy her remaining years. What good is living like a queen on the French Riviera if you’re 85?

So I expect some throat-clearing from her before long. Will we see another round of “Maxwell was a victim too” trial balloons?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who, from any background, would not want out of prison?

[Estragon]

Of course. But Ms Maxwell may be better positioned than most to do something about it. Which might explain the transfer to Bryant, the special treatment, and the puppy.

[ReaderY]

It seems pretty explicable to me. A pretty obvious potential explanation is he can’t pardon her now because he still needs her testimony that he wasn’t involved, and prison is his only levarage right now to get her to cooperate and say nice things about him and testify in a favorable way if/when the time comes. But as long as she complies and declines to rat, he’s probably doing the best a mob-mole can do in a situation where his grip on power is sufficiently tenuous that he can’t directly let on that he’s even a mole, let alone that he’s using the powers of his office to ensure fellow members of his gang don’t rat on him.

[hobie]

The last I heard is that MAGA now rationalizes child sex. What's the point of arguing with people who think that?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who told you that? Your homies or your Haitian neighbors?

[Patrick Mincey]

A Florida court has dismissed defamation claims against Truth Social Whistleblower Wilkerson, The Guardian and other media outlets for reporting on suspicious $8M loans tried to Vladimir Putin’s that Trump Media & Technology Group from ES Family Trust Family Trust and Russian Anton Postolnikov. The case is Trump Media v. The Guardian, Wilkerson et al in Sarasota County CASE NO. 2024 CA 003653 NC.

“This action arises from the publication of several articles reporting on a federal criminal investigation related to TMTG's receipt of two payments totaling $8 million. On March 15 and March 17, 2023, the Guardian published two articles stating federal prosecutors in New York were conducting a money laundering investigation related to the payments, which were wired through the Caribbean from Paxum Bank and ES Family Trust, entities with ties to an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and a history of providing banking services to the sex worker industry. The articles report Wilkerson's statements that the origins of the loans caused alarm at TMTG and MTG's then CFO weighed returning the money, but the money was
ultimately not returned.”

https://cms.sarasotaclerk.com/BenchmarkWebCAPS/ExternalDocuments.aspx/DownloadDocuments?id=EAAAAATe9p4HX6qOgcCBXNo34u00Vh5Ob2krKHlhZtLtVyUL&caseid=EAAAAA5e36zX52xnXOfchl5vEItu%2bQoTB1APa5pN0SfJFRTB

[ThePublius]

The 'ShamWow guy' is running for Congress in Texas

"The "ShamWow guy" is running for Congress and is looking to wipe the floor with the competition.

Offer Vince Shlomi, the once-prominent infomercial pitchman, is running for Congress in Texas, according to a filing with the state's Republican Party.

Shlomi is running for the seat held by Republican Rep. John Carter, 84, who has served more than two decades in Congress. Carter announced earlier this month he'd run for re-election, so Shlomi has an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbent.

The former pitchman, best known for his role selling the "ShamWow" towel, told Fox News that he wants to "destroy wokeism" in Congress and that he's been motivated by the "political infighting in the country" to run and "make America happy.""

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/shamwow-guy-running-congress-texas-rcna245616

Remember his follow-up, the Slap Chop? "You're gonna love my nuts!" Ha, ha.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Crazy Eddy in NY be next?

[Bwaaah]

As the commercials said, HIS PRICES WERE I N S A N E !!!

They'd beat *any* advertised price. I feel bad for having taken them up on that offer, over and over again. It left them no profit (despite their CRAZY advertising expenditures).

How'd they do it? By showing off their incredibly fast-growing top-line sales numbers to blissfully ignorant investors, and sharing the dream with them in a successful public share offering. Little did investors know that Crazy Eddie's inventory assets were a fraction of what investors were told. Though Eddie's had 43 stores, each supposedly with its own inventory, they were really just shuffling a little bit of inventory from one store to another just hours ahead of potential discovery by the public accounting auditors.

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

[John 4]

Yes, the GOP Is a clown show and he fits in perfect. Even has the criminal record as is tradition.

[ThePublius]

Jerk.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dem politicians go to prison at a far higher rate historically.

[Frank Drackman]

And leave young women to asphyxiate(not drown, there’s a difference)

[loki13]

Just wanted to make sure I understand this.

American social media companies (like Twitter) pay out money to foreigners to induce those foreign workers to make click-bait content that is divisive and angers the blood of Americans and causes Americans to hate each other more, but more importantly, hate foreigners the most.

I feel like this is somehow related to the Underwear Gnomes ...

Step 1: Pay people to make us more angry and full of hate.
Step 2: ??????
Step 3: PROFIT!!!!!!

[Michael P]

You lost me at step 1. Are you talking about Twitter's "ad revenue sharing" program (a whopping $8–$12 per million verified-user impressions, much less for free users) or something else? How sloppy are you being with the word "induce" -- for example, are you currently inducing sane people to think you're an idiot, or inducing emotional people to hate you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the key point here is that social media companies pay anybody who reliably generates engagement, on an automated basis, NOT on the basis of what sort of engagement it is. From the algorithm's perspective, rage baiting and offering up a good recipe for tuna casserole are indistinguishable.

Maybe the tuna casserole recipe is downgraded a bit for leading you off the social media site to peruse other recipes.

The algorithm isn't smart enough to care if the posts are making people fat, saving them money, inspiring hate crimes. All it knows is what you clicked on or lingered over, while your eyeballs were subject to incidental ads.

[loki13]

That might make sense, Brett.

....except, of course, that we are talking about for-profit companies. Which means that they absolutely, positively know exactly what type of content drives engagement. They did a lot of internal studies and research on this ... remember when this was a "scandal" a while back with Facebook/Meta/whatever they want to call themselves now?

And who designs the algorithms to drive engagement? That's right.

It's not even hard to find any of this out. We know that they make money be engagement. We know that they know what drives engagement. And we know that they are trying to keep that engagement with PRECISELY the type of content that ... drives engagement, which they have already determined.

Guess what? It's not tuna casserole recipes.

So now the question is ... how to drive it! So they pay creators to create that content. And ... guess what? If you were a little more worldly, you'd know that people in other countries (where the money matter a lot more) take that easy money to create the type of content that will drive the engagement. Which, again, is not tuna casserole recipes.

How is it that you find conspiracies in every other place, but when it comes to things that are right in front of you, you somehow manage to find a tuna casserole recipe? Motivated reasoning is a helluva thing, innit?

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is the algorithms are designed to drive engagement, PERIOD. They're agnostic as to what sort of engagement. They're not being programed to push content because the programmers think it will attract eyeballs, they're designed to learn, autonomously, what sort of content attracts eyeballs.

The job is too complex for the programmers to play puppeteer.

[loki13]

...I know that there's a new thread, but ... wow.

Too basic points that you seem to have missed.

1. Algorithms do not arise in a vacuum; they are designed. This isn't some case of AI run amok, it is the salient feature of social media and has been for almost two decades.

2. Again, this isn't some secret. This is all known and was revealed in prior investigations (see, e.g., Facebook). Why do you insist on speculating on something when we already know the facts?

Again, you always seem to find conspiracies when you want in order to divine some dark secret motivation, and yet you manage to ignore actual known facts that show ... a dark secret motivation and engage in speculation that contradicts those facts that are known in other case in order to avoid the actual proven motivations.

Okay?

[NvEric]

I'm slow on this one, but I was curious about it anyway.
There's a "BEST BY" date on salt. Salt, that sits in the ground for millions of years, has a "BEST BY" date once it's processed and packaged. Salt, an essential nutrient, once prized, now falsely scorned, has a "BEST BY" date of 3 years on one package of 'Sea Salt', another strange topic for another time.

Happy Thanksgiving All, .... but please check the date on your salt first, because it may be past its prime !

[ducksalad]

Went over just now to the kitchen and checked.

Morton's Salt (ordinary, not sea salt, not iodized, classic blue cardboard cylinder) does not have a "best by" statement.

Sprout's Atlantic Sea Salt does have a "best by" date, as you say, about 3 years after we bought it.

Preliminary theory: They figure the kind of people* that buy "sea salt" at Sprout's may be the kind of people that habitually check dates. They might refuse to buy if there is no date; conversely, they might toss good "expired" salt and buy a new container. Either way, helps maintain profits.

*Not us. I swear we were there just because the grocery for regular guys was closed or something.

[loki13]

"Expired salt tastes better."
-Some foodie, somewhere.

[ducksalad]

Foodie or atmospheric scientist.

"Changes in shape and composition of sea-salt particles upon aging in an urban atmosphere"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231014008255

[Estragon]

Morton’s says 5 years:

https://www.mortonsalt.com/article/morton-salt-expiration-guide/

[ducksalad]

It expires but they didn't put a warning on the label!

Does this mean I can call the Texas Law Hawk?

https://youtu.be/HL3MxAH-kDI

Jackpot settlement! Vamos a ganar!

[ThePublius]

My salt expired right in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner last year.

H/T to Steven Wright.

[loki13]

They posted the transcript of the entire Bovino deposition-

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571.284.31.pdf

Look, I was a little hesitant to post this because of the ... usual suspects. But then I remembered that they can't... sorry, don't read any actual source documents, especially the legal stuff.

Anyway, this is for the lawyers to look through. I think we can all form our own opinions of the deponent (and, um the DOJ) from this, and they will form quickly. And they will form before you even get to the substantive lying. Because it's just WOW.

If this was a client in one of my cases, I would tell them, "We need to settle, because you do not want to be on the stand."

Reminder- they lie. They lie. They lie. Also? They're assholes. That too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As to the last point, my first rule/goal is "don't be a dick."

Those in power now go in another direction.

[loki13]

Two things-

First, it seems that the prerequisite for being in this administration is to not only be incompetent, but to be a dick about being incompetent.

Second, when I was young (so much younger than today) I was in a relationship with a girl for a long time. I asked for a little while in why she kept seeing me after our first date which ... it didn't go that great. She told me that the one thing that mattered to her was that she saw that I treated all the people (waitresses, cashiers, etc.) really well. She told me that the best judge of a person's character is to see how they act toward people that they don't have to be nice to.

I have learned that there is a lot of wisdom in that. Also? Trying to impress a date with a feat of strength that ends up with you having to go to the ER is not advised, but also not necessarily the death knell of a budding relationship I thought it was.

[John 4]

Object to form. Lacks foundation.

[loki13]

....well played.

Although .... the whole "asked and answered" AFTER the attorney doing the deposition pointed out it was an improper objection was also something.

[LawTalkingGuy]

TBF, I don’t think a lawyer should stop an objection based on what opposing counsel says is “improper.” Instead he should have stopped because he started sounding like a sovereign citizen shouting legal jargon at a judge. That’s not effective advocacy!

[loki13]

Well, you have to look at the context ... this was at the beginning, and after the DOJ counsel in question just said that the other counsel knew his way around a deposition (true) and the other counsel, inter alia, reminded him that "asked and answered" isn't a proper objection at depositions (it isn't).

The conduct of the DOJ's attorney (speaking objections, coaching, improper objections in general) was what I might see from a billboard plaintiff's attorney, not from a DOJ attorney. But ... honestly, given how bad the deponent was, it barely registered.

It was tweedle dum and dumber.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Billboard lawyers are usually good lawyers, or at least know enough to refer cases to good lawyers.

[loki13]

...mmmmm. I mean, depends on the jurisdiction and the type of law, I guess?

I was thinking of a certain type of billboard lawyer who isn't actually a good lawyer at all, but is very good at managing a huge volume of cases, which results in a lot of low-value settlements, if you catch my drift. That takes a lot of skills that have very little to do with the law, and arguably less to do with the clients.

But yes, I was good friends with the "DUI King" of a particular college town, and he was an excellent attorney- although when he told me what his advertising budget was, I was in shock, because it taught me that you really do have to "spend money to make money" in certain areas.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When I think billboard I think med mal and personal injury. And as a class they have an undeserved bad reputation. Some of the smartest and most talented lawyers did plaintiffs PI. To actually succeed at medical malpractice you need to be very good. It’s not something a true incompetent will be able to handle.

And if they can afford billboards and commercials they or people at their firm were excellent at least at some point.

The worst lawyers usually were some suburban solo or small practice that did a mix of general business litigation or employment.

[ducksalad]

In the one unfortunate time when I had to do a deposition, the state's lawyer (who was on my side) did recite some kind of brief objection about every third or fourth question. Sometimes he flat told me not to answer, and sometimes he objected but let me answer anyway when the private lawyer rephrased it in way that (to me) made no difference.

I have no clue how that stuff works.

[David Nieporent]

Aside from it being legally improper, what percentage of the time (not specifically in this case) do you think it's ever true? In my experience, somewhere north of 90% of the time the question that evokes the question was asked but not answered.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Vague

[wvattorney13]

I don't see any smoking gun here. It is a typical deposition where the parties and the lawyers don't like each other.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm reading a biography of the first woman in Congress.

Winning the Earthquake: How Jeannette Rankin Defied All Odds to Become the First Woman in Congress by Lorissa Rinehart.

Interesting as history. Her writing style is a bit annoying. Overheated color commentary, you might say.

Rankin was a suffragist, pacifist, and election reformer.

She was elected as one of two at-large members from Montana. Rankin was helped by not having to run for a single district. She came in second place in the at-large balloting for two slots.

Rankin supported multi-member districts. direct election of presidents, opposed partisan gerrymandering (in 1918), supported absentee voting (in place in Montana), and ranked choice voting.

Her youngest sister, Edna, was the first Montana-born woman to obtain a law degree in the state. She later became a birth control advocate. Jeannette appears to be supportive, but was more conservative about publicly coming out in support.

[Bob from Ohio]

Voted against declaring war on Japan, after Pearl Harbor.

[Josh R]

And voted against declaring war in WWI, the only person to vote in Congress against both wars. I learned this last month when I visited the Montana state capitol. They have a statue of her.

[Bob from Ohio]

That vote could be defended but the one in favor of Japan was an abomination that rightfully ended her career.

[apedad]

9 U.S. States With the Shortest Life Expectancy, According to Data

1. Mississippi
2. West Virginia
3. Alabama
4. Louisiana
5. Kentucky
6. Arkansas
7. Oklahoma
8. Tennessee
9. New Mexico

https://backroadplanet.com/9-u-s-states-with-the-shortest-life-expectancy-according-to-data/

Diabetes and limited healthcare facilities are common themes across these states.

[Frank Drackman]

There’s another one.

[hobie]

Is it that they're all run by white heterosexual MAGA?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Your responding to a post by the commenter who calls himself Frank. It's race. Always.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course race is not a factor in the incidence of some medical conditions, because that would be racist.

[Zarniwoop]

Roger Parloff of Lawfare posted yesterday a summary and link to live-Xitter posting of the Nov. 20 hearing in Garcia v. Noem. It's really something.

The TL,DR, all paraphrases:
1) the gov't tried to submit sealed declaration saying "Costa Rica says they will no longer accept Garcia"
2) Judge said "why should I believe that?" and orders declarant has to show up in court, with actual knowledge, and the in-court testimony will bind the gov't
3) Declarant show up, admits on the witness stand he has no actual knowledge of why the gov't claims Costa Rica won't accept Garcia, and was spoon fed the declaration info with no explanation (see xits 16-17, 25-27, 32-34)
4) Judge assessed credibility of gov't at "zero"

Bonus: a few days later, a high CR official confirmed they will still accept Garcia, and nothing has changed from CR's perspective.

So to quote Loki13: "Reminder- they lie. They lie. They lie."

[loki13]

Bonus fun fact- the DOJ attorney who argued at that hearing was DREW ENSIGN. Because when the DOJ absolutely, positively KNOWS that they need an attorney to just absolutely lie to the court, they have their go-to guy.

Rule of thumb- if you see Drew Ensign make an appearance in a case, you know the DOJ has gone from "lying a lot" to just "making all this shit up and getting ready to disobey court orders."

[Zarniwoop]

No lies detected. Unlike Drew opening his mouth!

On a less-humorous note: when Mr. Ensign was initially involved in cases, I thought he might be the uniformed cat's paw. That theory is now ... outdated. If the (D) candidate wins the next presidential election, Mr. Ensign should either play really, really stupid, or try for a DJT pardon before Jan 20, 2029. There are too many overt lies to Federal judges to go unnoticed.

[David Nieporent]

Of course all of Trump's lawyers are terrible (or they wouldn't agree to work for Trump), but Ensign so far really stands out in this administration as being willing to lie to judges.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Australian prisoner sues for his ‘human right’ to eat Vegemite

https://apnews.com/article/australia-prison-vegemite-ban-court-victoria-e46084defadc9757c8ecf2f53027d215

Vegemite has been banned from Victorian prisons since 2006, with Corrections Victoria saying it “interferes with narcotic detection dogs.”

Inmates used to smear packages of illicit drugs with Vegemite in the hope that the odor would distract the dogs from the contraband.

Vegemite also contains yeast, which is banned from Victorian prisons because of its “potential to be used in the production of alcohol,” the contraband list says.

Vegemite. It's Australian for food, mate.

[loki13]

Only in the stupidest timeline, story one trillion:

Rush Hour 4 iis a go at Paramount. Why is this weird?

Because it only happened because Donald Trump (who apparently isn't busy doing other stuff) pressured his buddy Ellison (who totes didn't bribe Trump and get all sorts of favors in return) to push the project which will result in the return of Brett Ratner, who has been unable to get meaningful work in Hollywood since 2017, when numerous women* accused him (with lots and lots and lots of corroboration) of sexual assault and harassment, which also led to other general allegations of his abusive behavior.

*Before we get the knee-jerk reactions of some, these were multiple people, across numerous time periods, all well-sourced and corroborated and people came forward ... you'd recognize many of the names.

That's right- One sexual abuser helps another sexual abuser get back into business, by pressuring his corrupt friend with whom he has a mutually beneficial (and lucrative) relationship. The only thing that would make this more weird is if Netanyahu were involved.

Oh, really? Like I said, the stupidest timeline.

[ThePublius]

No one cares.

[Frank Drackman]

I do, well in the sense that I heard about it and have it on my list of movies to check out as I like Chris Tucker but I’ve only seen him in “Jackie Brown” and Commercials.

Frank

[John 4]

“No one [with any morals or ethics] cares.” True. A cultist will not care. Thinking people may care though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Thinking people"

Why? Its just a movie.

[John 4]

As anticipated, the cultists willfully ignore the point.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ratner was announced as the director of an upcoming documentary film on First Lady Melania Trump.

[loki13]

I did not know that. But ...

remembers that this is the stupidest timelines

...completely tracks.

[ducksalad]

History quiz about 2020-2021, but with 1-10 scale instead of multiple-choice answers. Feel free to interpolate between points given.

Q. Orders were issued for military personnel to get the COVID vaccine. Was this a valid order?
1 - There is not even in theory such a thing as an illegal order. Full Riva!
10 - The order was obviously illegal and the ones who obeyed are the ones who needed to be hung.

Q. There were some military personnel who refused the COVID vaccine.
1 - Anything other than instant, cheerful compliance with zero questions was mutiny punishable by death.
10 - They were fully within their Constitutional rights, and questioning that right is the real sedition.

Q. Some congressmen and VC commenters voiced objections to the vaccine order.
1 - The congressmen and VC commenters were guilty of sedition and liable to a penalty of death.
10 - Anyone who failed to object to the COVID order was undermining the Constitution, and that is sedition punishable by death.

Q. Recently the Trump administration restored some benefits to those discharged for objecting.
1 - They are molly-coddling traitors, and that in itself is also treason.
10 - Restoring benefits is not enough, those who denied the benefits were committing a crime and must be punished.

Q. Would your answers then and today look good if placed in juxtaposition?
1 - I'm proud of my consistency and have never wavered.
10 - Thank God there isn't a good search engine for these comment threads.

[Frank Drackman]

But Covid!!!!!

[ducksalad]

What were your answers back then, Frank? I'll post mine.

7- The order was unwise given the controversy, but probably legal.
7 - I wouldn't label it mutiny or sedition, and letting it go would have been the best solution.
5 - Everybody was just fine. People not on active duty have full freedom of speech, including addressing their opinions to people who are on active duty.
8 - Restoring their benefits is the normal and humane thing to do.
X - Others can judge that for themselves. I like to think it's a 2 or so.

[Armchair]

Re: "The order was unwise given the controversy, but probably legal."

I'll disagree. The order was wise. The responsibility to the United States was that a fighting force remained in good health. The full risks of COVID were unknown, and a vaccine that protected the fighting force at 90% efficacy was important.

The error was in requiring EVERY member to get it. Once you hit 90-95% compliance...if a couple percentage went down, it didn't break things. So there was room for a small minority of dissenters.

[ducksalad]

We probably mean the same thing on 1. I meant it was unwise to make it an absolute order, not that it was unwise to get vaccinated or to strongly encourage people to get it.

[OpinionsVary]

I've got one:

The President recalls a reservist senator to active status. The President then orders the senator to vote for a specific bill. Is this order unlawful?

(Yes but why).

And the other question.

The President recalls a reservist senator to active status. The President then orders the senator to go somewhere out of DC at a specific place and time for a nominally military function, such that the senator will miss a critical vote. Is this order unlawful?

[ducksalad]

The President then orders the senator to vote for a specific bill. Is this order unlawful?

If I was going to steelman the pro-executive position, I could answer that it is legal for the president to issue the order; however, the senator can't be punished for disobeying it because of the clause in the Constitution that says members of Congress may not be questioned for what they do on the Senate floor.

But there's also the Incompatibility Clause. Someone can't be a military officer and a congressman at the same time. Does that mean the president can't call him up, or that he has to resign? Good question.

If the senator played along with the president and tried to do both, which acts would be invalid - his senate votes, or his military orders? I think since the Senate is the sole judge of its member's qualifications, if they accept his votes they are valid.

Just spitballing here.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd assume it means the President can't call him up, or rather, that he doesn't have to respond to the call. Since his claim on the office is of a constitutional nature, and the President's power to call up the reserve is statutory, if they come into conflict the former must prevail.

[ducksalad]

Yes, that sounds right.

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed that the right solution is that "as long as a person is a member of Congress, they cannot be recalled to military service and subject to the orders of the President [including courts-martial over disagreements], because of the Incompatibility Clause."

This should be a no-brainer regardless of political valence. What self-identified conservatives want to give that power to Prez AOC?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That might not be how it actually is working.

See, e.g., Lindsey Graham's military service in recent decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

A: 3. There absolutely is such a thing as an illegal order, this was not one.
B: 5. Death seems a bit harsh, this sort of thing should normally result in a dishonorable discharge.
C: 5. The objections were neither sedition nor was failure to raise them.
D: 5. Commuting sentences is a plenary Presidential power. And this was a reasonable exercise of it, since, though the original order was lawful, it was appallingly stupid.

I believe this was consistent with my position at the time: Lawful and appallingly stupid order.

[John 4]

“Death seems a bit harsh” — absolute clown show here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, I believe that in time of peace, refusal to comply with a lawful order should result in nothing more than dishonorable discharge. Combat changes things.

[Armchair]

1) 2. It was a legal order
2) 5. There were valid reasons to refuse/question such a vaccine.
3) 5. Freedom of speech is important.
4) 7. The vaccine demands were taken too far and used as a sign of political compliance. Restoring benefits is appropriate
5) 2.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the world of what could possibly go wrong:
"One of the world’s premier security organizations has canceled the results of its annual leadership election after an official lost an encryption key needed to unlock results stored in a verifiable and privacy-preserving voting system."
https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/11/cryptography-group-cancels-election-results-after-official-loses-secret-key/

[Bwaaah]

My father sank a safe into the concrete floor of our basement, and wrote down the combination on an adjacent wall, easily visible.

He never had a problem getting into the safe.

Good thing the house didn't burn down.

[not guilty]

Joe_Dallas, have you identified any anti-semitic thing that I have said?

If no, when can I expect your apology?

[Mr. Bumble]

Someone needs to fix the threading in these comments.

[Bwaaah]

That doesn't look like a threading problem. Other than boiler plate NG, I can't tell what that was.

[not guilty]

What is the threading issue here? A few days ago, Joe_Dallas accused me of being racist and anti-semitic. I immediately challenged him to cite any anti-semitic comment that I have made on these threads. He responded with radio silence.

Since that day's exchange, I have repeatedly reiterated my challenge to him. He has said absolutely nothing in reply.

I am accustomed to vapid commenters who genuflect to Clarence Toady accusing me of racism (because, I suspect, they cannot offer any excuse for his hypocrisy, mendacity and opportunism). But Joe_Dallas's accusation appears to have come straight from Otto Hizazz.

[Joe_dallas]

My apologies - Martineed had made the blatant anti semitic comment that day. My confusion, since you made a very racist comment in the same thread. You on the other hand repetitively make racist comments, especially regarding Clarence Thomas. I recall a few anti Israel comments from you.

[Bob from Ohio]

You forgot misogyny.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. He always had a whiff of that; never seemed to smell it.

[hobie]

I wasn't aware that the nation state of Israel was a race. I make critical remarks about it all the time. I also make critical remarks about Trump all the time...does that mean I hate all pedophiles?

[ThePublius]

Since when is a Trump a pedophile?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I don't know that Trump is a pedophile and I've heard of no reasonable accusation that he has engaged in any illegal behavior with those under the age of consent, but he has, over the years, shown a disturbingly prurient interest in under-aged girls His interest in under-aged boys has, to the best of my knowledge, not been in evidence.

[ThePublius]

I am not aware of any interest of Trump's in under age girls. But Biden's has been in evidence for years, including showering with is daughter. Yet, no complaints from the left of that.

If you have evidence of Trump's supposed "disturbingly prurient interest in under-aged girls," let's hear it.

I'm sick of this bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

"In evidence" means something other than you think it does.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One example, which I cited before, is popping in uninvited in the dressing rooms of teen beauty contestants.

In one discussion on the Howard Stern show, the discussion went to how young he would think was too young. He noted something like 12 might be a problem.

[not guilty]

Thank you. I have made some comments critical of ancient Israel being commanded by Yahweh to commit genocide and some other barbaric practices (such as enslaving other folks and stoning obstreperous children), but I don't bear animosity toward the modern nation of Israel, nor to Jews otherwise.

I have been quite harsh about Clarence Thomas -- and I own every word I have said about him -- but my criticisms are not attributable to racism. I do believe that he has cynically employed race in service of self-aggrandizement, which is despicable.

I first formed a negative impression of Mr. Thomas when, in order to curry favor with right wing Republicans, he trashed his sister for having been on public assistance. That shows a disturbing lack of family loyalty.

He is the most prominent beneficiary of affirmative action in American history -- first at Holy Cross, then at Yale Law School, then with two sinecures in the Reagan administration, and then with his appointment to the Court of Appeals by the first President Bush, whose pronouncement that then-Judge Thomas was the "best qualified at this time" for nomination to SCOTUS is the most egregious lie told by a President in my lifetime. Moreso than "Well, I'm not a crook"; moreso than "We did not trade arms for hostages"; moreso than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Mr. Thomas nevertheless was a strident critic of the very race-based programs he had hugely benefited from.

When that SCOTUS nomination seemed in peril, however, Thomas suddenly played the race card furiously. He fulminated that the confirmation "is a high tech lynching for uppity blacks, who in any way deigned to think for themselves. And is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U. S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

That trivializing of the horror of lynching is truly reprehensible. If the Senate had refused to confirm his SCOTUS nomination, Thomas would have still enjoyed a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals, as did Robert Bork and Clement Haynesworth (the latter of whom served another twenty years after the Senate rejected his nomination in 1969). Nice work if you can get it.

Clarence Toady has made a career of being a House Negro on the GOP Candyland Plantation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZsUhJpmMjo

I don't expect Clarence Thomas to encounter Leo Frank, Emmitt Till, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in the next life. If he does, I hope that they beat the stuffing out of him every day and twice on Sunday for trivializing lynching in that manner.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That trivializing of the horror of lynching is truly reprehensible."

Biden made the same metaphor about Clinton's impeachment, but I don't see you excoriating him. Maybe when Thomas does it it's (b)ifferent?

[Magister]

The word lynching by itself doesn't have the connotations that Thomas made explicit; he wanted to pretend that the only reason people opposed his appointment was not his dubious character or qualifications but because of racism toward an uppity black man with an explicit comparison to being hanged from a tree. (I'd also say that declaring an attack aimed at oneself a lynching is worse, playing the victim card, than if one says it about attacks on someone else.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

How does any of that excuse Biden trivializing the horrors of lynching?

[Magister]

Since he didn't play a victim of racism card, unlike Clarence Thomas, he did not trivialize the horrors of racial lynching. Try reading it again, maybe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So it's (b)ifferent when Thomas does it. Got it.

[Magister]

When he did something different, yes, the result is different. Different act, different outcome.

[not guilty]

Senator Biden said that the impeachment of President Clinton was "a high tech lynching for uppity blacks, who in any way deigned to think for themselves"? Do you have a citation for that, TwelveInch?

When Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton "the first black president," she was speaking metaphorically.

If Biden said that, (and I don't recall that he did, but my memory is imperfect,) it was not appropriate IMO. Some words and phrases, such as slavery, the Holocaust and treason, should not be trivialized by casual comparisons. Lynching is one of those words.

But such use of the analogy as you claim that Biden made is relatively less offensive, because he was not seeking advantage for himself by exploiting racial tensions.

As the ragin' Cajun James Carville might have said regarding Clarence Toady, "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Senator Biden said that the impeachment of President Clinton was 'a high tech lynching for uppity blacks, who in any way deigned to think for themselves'? "

Why would he say that? As you point out, Clinton isn't black.

I guess I was correct when I suggested that when Thomas does it, it's (b)ifferent. But not because it trivialized lying less when Biden does it.

[not guilty]

Biden trivialized lying?

Freudian slip? Bill Clinton was known to have regarded truth as such a precious quantity that he used it sparingly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Biden trivialized lying?" Well, yes, but that was a typo.

NG: "Some words and phrases, such as slavery, the Holocaust and treason, should not be trivialized by casual comparisons."

Also NG: "Clarence Toady has made a career of being a House Negro on the GOP Candyland Plantation."

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

[jay.tee]

my criticisms are not attributable to racism

[…]

Clarence Toady has made a career of being a House Negro

Good god man, the childish name calling sufficiently impugns your character. You really didn’t need to reveal your virulently racist side, too.

[not guilty]

I am not discomfited by Clarence Thomas's race. As I said upthread, it's his hypocrisy, mendacity and opportunism that trouble me.

There were any number of qualified black jurists and law practitioners whom President Bush I could have nominated for SCOTUS to succeed Thurgood Marshall. He chose instead to nominate a buffoon who was not then and never since has been fit to carry Justice Marshall's briefcase.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, you've said that part of his hypocrisy was that he married a white woman.

[not guilty]

No, that is a flat out lie. I have never said that at all, and I don't care who was foolish enough to marry him.

I have said that Justice Toady's conspicuous omission of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), from the pantheon of substantive due process cases that he wants to revisit is hypocritical -- that he regards substantive due process to be as sketchy as he does affirmative action: a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas.

The man is a self-serving opportunist.

[not guilty]

FWIW, I have also called out former Senator Strom Thurmond for rank hypocrisy in regard to his fulminating against miscegenation.

Do you claim that that evinces anti-white racism on my part, TwelveInchPinhead?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, that is a flat out lie. I have never said that at all..."

You said that his view that SDP doesn't support Loving v. Virgina made him a hypocrite because he was married to a white woman.

Not Competent, are you seriously equating fulminating against miscegenation with thinking that SDP doesn't prevent States from passing anti-miscegenation laws? Do you not get that just because a law is bad doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Shorter NG: "A few days ago Joe_dallas accused me of being racist and antisemitic. I said, 'I'm not antisemitic!'"

[Bwaaah]

LOL.

"So am I anti-semitic, Joe_Dallas? I'm waiting."

[not guilty]

Shorter NG: "A few days ago Joe_dallas accused me of being racist and antisemitic. I said, 'I'm not antisemitic!'"

I am accustomed to being falsely accused by MAGAts of racism on these threads. But being falsely accused of anti-semitism was a new one, which I decided to respond to.

[loki13]

Hope everyone has a pleasant night. If you'd like some entertaining reading material, might I suggest the following:

https://www.theringer.com/2025/11/25/national-affairs/olivia-nuzzi-rfk-jr-ryan-lizza-explained-book-scandal

I mean ... that graph of ... um, two terms over time. Anyway, as someone who had not been following that particular scandal ....

I am going to laugh all the way to the very very very long shower I need to take now.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ralph Abraham, a physician, veterinarian and former member of Congress who as Louisiana’s surgeon general ordered the state health department to stop promoting vaccinations and who has called Covid vaccines “dangerous,” has been named the second in command at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/health/cdc-ralph-lee-abraham-vaccines.html

Will the "pro-life" mavens speak out on this appointment?

[Bwaaah]

More charlatans taking the place of experts. But at the tops of government agencies, in the upper realms of propaganda apparati.

If anybody doubted these agencies were being overridden by propagandists, they should have no doubt now.

Medical science remains unchanged. It's as accessible as one's critical thinking, obscured only by one's dogmas. Doctors remain relatively informed, relevant, available, useful.

Hey...the USDA has been promulgating "organic" regulations for years. "Complementary alternative medicine" is a respected thing for many. Coal *is* kind of "immoral" (see above), isn't it?

If it has enough believers, it gets wings, no?

(Not from me.)

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA MAGA MAGA.

[Armchair]

In other news...

The United Kingdom is apparently floating a plan to eliminate jury trials for most crimes. Wow.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/britains-plan-to-abolish-most-jury-trials-should-make-us-grateful-for-the-constitution/

And the UK goes down the road to authoritarianism...