Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Extremely interesting case where Greenpeace is trying to use Dutch Anti-SLAPP law to avoid a North Dakota Judgment of about 400 million against Greenpeace for illegally trying to stop the Dakota Access pipeline.

It may work because Greenpeace is headquartered in the Netherlands, just like an American entity sued for First Amendment protected activities can protect their American assets.

But I don't think it will work to protect Greenpeace's American assets.

"Energy Transfer identified two U.S.-based Greenpeace entities and the umbrella group Greenpeace International as the ringleaders responsible for the pipeline fiasco. During a three-week trial in March, the pipeline company presented evidence that Greenpeace personnel funded and trained protestors and even equipped them with lockboxes to chain themselves to pipeline equipment. It also said that Greenpeace attempted to deprive the project of funding by falsely claiming the pipeline would encroach on tribal land. Greenpeace tried to distance itself from the violent conflict surrounding the pipeline. But the group couldn’t take back a 2016 email from Greenpeace USA’s executive director stating the “massive” support it provided to the protests. The jury returned a nine-figure verdict, including $400 million in punitive damages."

WSJ article, but non paywalled version here.
https://archive.md/MbtrO#selection-553.0-557.92

[Dr. Ed 2]

" It gives European courts significant leeway to relitigate American cases when the result doesn’t conform to their values."

That's an act of war.

Forget Greenpeace, let's seize both the assets of the Dutch Government and all Dutch citizens. If they're not going to recognize out law, we shouldn't recognize theirs.

The real solution will be to pass an American law explicitly authorizing the use of deadly force against Greenpeace. ND was starting to legalize running over protesters.

[Malika la Maize]

“The real solution will be to pass an American law explicitly authorizing the use of deadly force against Greenpeace. ND was starting to legalize running over protesters.”

Dumb, deranged and deplorable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, blocking traffic and chaining yourself to equipment is -- and abandoning the liberal value of all human life being sacred thus becomes necessary as a result.

Consider it a post-partum abortion -- at least the unborn is innocent -- these schmucks aren't. And of course, ideally, we would prevent them doing this stuff in the first place.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"ND was starting to legalize running over protesters."

It's not uncommon for laws to allow deadly force to prevent a kidnapping.

If protestors are deliberately blocking a vehicle's only means of egress from a situation, allowing the vehicle to run them over seems reasonable.

[Sarcastr0]

Why in the world would you pick up Ed's insane murderfantasy?

[David Nieporent]

It is entirely uncommon — like nonexistent — for laws to allow deadly force when one is not in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Arson, burglary, and kidnapping can often be defended against with deadly force even if there's no imminent threat of death.

I don't see a problem with people who are effectively kidnapped by rioters defending themselves. If they don't want to get run over, they can get out of the way.

[John F. Carr]

Before you invade...

As Kazinski mentioned, we do the same thing to Europe. A defamation judgment from England or an illegal social media post judgment from the EU is likely not to be recognized in the USA.

[David Nieporent]

That's an act of war.

It is not. How retarded is Dr. Ed?

Forget Greenpeace, let's seize both the assets of the Dutch Government and all Dutch citizens. If they're not going to recognize out law, we shouldn't recognize theirs.

Apparently Dr. Ed has never read "ou[r] law."

[not guilty]

Jeh Johnson, who served as secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration, and, before that, general counsel of the Department of Defense, has an op-ed column in yesterday's New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/opinion/hegseth-boat-strikes-killings.html

It is quite an effective rejoinder to the MAGAt whataboutists who posit equivalence between the Caribbean boat strikes and the targeted killings of other bad guys around the world by previous administrations, including that of Barack Obama.

As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8&list=RDrsRjQDrDnY8&start_radio=1

[Mr. Bumble]

“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine,”
Who said this?

[Drewski]

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. There's no other evidence in the public record that Obama said it, only the claims of two guys with legal problems who did not personally work for or with him.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, we should reject as hearsay claims by people who were not actual witness to words and deeds?
Good to know.

[DDHarriman]

These same people have taken "said two people familiar with the matter" as proof of Trumpian War Crimes... meanwhile.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, Bumble usually derides reports on anonymous sources when it’s about pols he likes.

[Mr. Bumble]

You got me.
So, we should [probably] reject hearsay claims by people who were not actual witness to words and deeds?
Better?

[Frank Drackman]

Could be Barry Hussein, but you left out all the "Uhhh"s

[Commenter_XY]

Paywalled. NG, feel free to swallow what The Old Grey Hag publishes. The rest of us take whatever The Old Grey hag publishes with a huge dose of salt. Jeh has an opinion; you know what they say about opinions and anuses.

Regardless, the reality is there will be many more narco-terrorist POS killed trying to smuggle drugs to America. It doesn't trouble me, or most Americans, either; double tap them all. Why? Try looking at a video of Kensington in Philly and you'll know why. Every year, these narco-terrorist POS kill thousands of Americans with their product. Enough!

You're right about the Sesame Street song...we finally have a POTUS who is merrily and efficiently killing drug dealers who kill thousands of our people every year. He is certainly different than the others.

But you do you, counselor. Take up the cause of narco-terrorist drug dealers; align yourself with them. Go defend them in court, pro bono. Become a customer of their product, help them out. Because drug dealing POS and narco-terrorists need friends, customers, and useful idiots too.

[Malika la Maize]

“we finally have a POTUS who is merrily and efficiently killing drug dealers who kill thousands of our people every year.”

Some of us are old enough to remember that libertarians used to deride the “war on drugs.”

[Sarcastr0]

Also not efficiently, and these people aren't drug dealers.

Bloodlust people swiftly get unmoored from the facts.

[Malika la Maize]

XY certainly is a bloodluster.

[Commenter_XY]

How many Americans dying every year of ODs from the POS narco-terrorists product is acceptable to you, Queenie (and Vibe Man)? Is that 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000? Why don't you tell us what that number is. Just in the last decade, we are well past 200K.

If there were a protracted border war between us and say, Canada, and 200K Americans were killed over a decade, how would America react? Do you think we would just sigh and say, 'That is just the price we need to pay'? Uh no. We would absolutely destroy Canada to stop it.

Do either of you even care about these deaths of despair? They are Americans, in case you forgot. But I guess not just the kind of Americans you actually give a shit about. They don't live in nice homes in beltway neighborhoods, with neatly blown leaves to the curb.

Now we have a POTUS who is exacting retribution and significantly raising the stakes of smuggling illegal drugs to America. If you attempt to smuggle drugs to America, we will find you and you will die. This POTUS is not looking the other way and saying, 'Tut, tut, just another number'. No, this POTUS is actually doing something about it, not just talk; you could call it 'Doing Duterte'.

From a purely libertarian POV, the law is being enforced. You just don't like the terms of engagement.

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t know what libertarian means if you think it means summary executions of people taking drugs to people willing to buy them.

But let’s stipulate the evil of those being killed, your relish of it is what indicates your bloodlust (just like you exhibit regarding Gaza). You might want to ponder this from LOR:
Frodo: What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!

Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and mercy: not to strike without need.

Frodo: I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.

Gandalf: Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How many Americans dying every year of ODs from the POS narco-terrorists product is acceptable to you"

Personally, I can accept any number dying of ODs, so long as they volunteered for it.

What I can't accept is the innocent people who pay the price. I want the cost of drugs restricted to those who use them.

And let's be clear about the costs: Not just medical and lost productivity for the users. Rampant crime driven by maintaining a lucrative black market. Corruption through bribery on one side, and desperate efforts to enforce laws that simply cannot be effectively enforced in a free society, on the other. Inner city gangs. International cartels.

All this is built into victimless crime laws. They simply can't be effectively enforced by civilized means, and the attempt to corrupts both society and government.

The best way to minimize all that is to eliminate the source of it: Re-legalize the drugs. They used to be legal, you know, and while people did ruin themselves, society went on without them.

We figured out Prohibition was a mistake, and stopped. I only wish the war on drugs had the same conclusion, instead of the government doubling down, and eroding our civil liberties.

I don't want drugs re-legalized for the benefit of the drug dealers and users. Screw them. I want them re-legalized for the benefit of everybody else!

[Dr. Ed 2]

They were legal before the automobile.
How do you deal with OUI?

[Moderation4ever]

Brett I share much of your thoughts. I do however care about people that use drugs. I just believe we have a better chance to help them if we have a better drug policies that focused more on the demand end than on the supply side.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe libertarian still do deride the war on drugs. Don't confuse the MAGAs that comment here, they are not libertarians.

[David Nieporent]

Regardless, the reality is there will be many more narco-terrorist POS killed trying to smuggle drugs to America. It doesn't trouble me, or most Americans, either; double tap them all. Why? Try looking at a video of Kensington in Philly and you'll know why. Every year, these narco-terrorist POS kill thousands of Americans with their product. Enough!

1) There is no such thing as a "narco terrorist." It's just a made-up phrase conflating two entirely different concepts.

2) None of these people were trying to smuggle drugs into America.

3) They haven't killed a single person with their product. People may have killed themselves by choosing to use their product. But that is, of course, the (poor) choice of those people.

4) You are an evil person.

[not guilty]

See if this will work, XY: https://removepaywalls.com/5/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/opinion/hegseth-boat-strikes-killings.html

The substance is that Secretary Johnson noted three important differences:

First, President Trump has effectively unilaterally declared war against Mexican and Venezuelan drug cartels, without authorization from Congress. In contrast, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress authorized President George W. Bush and his successors to treat terrorist members of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants in war and to use lethal military force against them.

Second, implicit in Congress’s 2001 authorization was the understanding that terrorist members of Al Qaeda and its affiliates were hiding in places such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen, beyond the reach of law enforcement. But drug smuggling and drug cartels, even those international in scope, are routine targets for law enforcement. The Mexican drug kingpin known as El Chapo, Joaquín Guzmán, was arrested and brought to justice in a U.S. court. Before President Trump pardoned him last week, the former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández was convicted in a U.S. court and was serving a 45-year sentence in an American jail for drug trafficking. The Coast Guard, supported by the U.S. Navy, routinely interdicts and arrests drug couriers on the high seas.

* * *

Third, there is a huge difference between the approaches of the Obama and Trump administrations to the use of lethal force. The Obama administration viewed lethal operations as necessary to protect American lives; officials in the Trump administration seem to revel in them.

It makes an enormous difference that Trump is acting without Congressional authorization, while the Bush II and Obama administrations had such authorization. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion on the scope of the September 18, 2001 Congressional Authorization for Military Force as to the legality of killing Al Qaeda members (specifically including Anwar al Awlaki) is here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB529-Anwar-al-Awlaki-File/documents/16)%20OLC%20Barron-Lederman%20July%202010%20Awlaki%20memo.pdf

A pdf of the 2001 AUMF is here: https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf It expressly states:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.

Trump has no such authorization to order summary execution of civilians on the high seas, even if they are trafficking narcotics.

If stopping the flow of drugs into the United States is the objective, the Coast Guard, supported by the U.S. Navy, is fully capable of interdiction of drugs and arrests of drug couriers on the high seas for prosecution according to law.

[not guilty]

"But you do you, counselor. Take up the cause of narco-terrorist drug dealers; align yourself with them. Go defend them in court, pro bono. Become a customer of their product, help them out. Because drug dealing POS and narco-terrorists need friends, customers, and useful idiots too."

During my criminal defense career, I took up the cause of protecting and preserving the rule of law -- putting the government to its burden of proof before imposing punishment. I continue to do so here.

XY, my having represented a Republican nominee for office who was convicted of assassinating his Democratic opponent is most assuredly no endorsement by me of assassination. (The State's theory was that he waited until it was too late for Democrats to name a replacement nominee, such that he would win by default. As it happened, however, the decedent's widow was elected on write-in ballots.)

By representing accused or convicted murderers and rapists, I certainly did not endorse the horrid conduct that they were accused of.

What with your bloodlust and devotion to Donald Trump, XY, you do endorse and applaud murder. That is sad.

[DDHarriman]

No rejoinder that has taken your position has ever been declared "ineffective" by you.

Naturally.

[not guilty]

DDHarriman, why would I cite or link to arguments that I regard as "ineffective"?

Your comment here is as cogent as observing that water is wet.

[Riva]

Uh no, Not Guilty, an unbalanced ipse dixit NY Times opinion piece rant labeling President Trump’s national security operations as “extrajudicial murder” is no more reliable or authoritative than false narratives fabricated by WP anonymous “sources.”

And you provide no argument of your own, other than something from Sesame Street, which, admittedly, is more reliable than WP anonymous sources and more compelling than NY Times opinion rants.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"But drug smuggling and drug cartels, even those international in scope, are routine targets for law enforcement. The Mexican drug kingpin known as El Chapo, Joaquín Guzmán, was arrested and brought to justice in a U.S. court. Before President Trump pardoned him last week, the former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández was convicted in a U.S. court and was serving a 45-year sentence in an American jail for drug trafficking. The Coast Guard, supported by the U.S. Navy, routinely interdicts and arrests drug couriers on the high seas."

https://archive.ph/vFVUs

[Martinned]

It's been nice having the US as an ally for 110 years (from Europe's perspective) or literally since its founding (from a Dutch perspective). Hopefully someday we can be allies again.

In the meantime you can shove your national security strategy where the sun don't shine. It's a good thing that the US Regime is so incompetent, otherwise it might actually be a problem that it is now the official strategy of the US to make sure more far right parties get elected in Europe, so that there will be fewer brown people there. At least pre-2022 the Russians were quite good at election interference, which is how we got into the mess we're in today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

[Martinned]

Yes, too many brown people and not nice against Trump's friends in Russia.

Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.

This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.

[Martinned]

"Majority non-European"

Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What part of that isn't true?

[David Nieporent]

The part about "majority non-European" is obviously not true, as — as I noted last week — barring continental drift the countries will remain in the same place. What Trump's douches mean is "non-white," not "non-European."

The implication that it's Europeans who might reject the worldviews of the people who entered into NATO is laughably false. Trump proudly rejects the idea of NATO. Setting aside that he's pro-Putin in the first place, he rejects the idea of the liberal international order and thinks the world should be run on big power spheres of influence and transactional arrangements.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You presume that "racism" is bad and being a "racist" is bad.

That has not always been the case, and it will not always be the case in the future.

[David Nieporent]

That has always been the case and always will be the case.

[Nelson]

Wait, you are defending racism as a good thing? Or, at the very least, not bad?

The lone remaining vestige of not-awful that you were clinging to was that you hadn’t gone full Rob Misek.

You are now, officially, the most awful person here. And that’s saying something given the presence of several conservative Holocaust deniers. And Jesse.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, when has "racism" and being a "racist" not been bad?

Please show your work.

[Martinned]

I guess interfering with foreign elections is fine, as long as it's the current US Regime doing it:

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize (...) Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations

That reminds me: Whatever happened to those tariffs on Canada? No, not the fentanyl ones, the "Doug Ford hurt Trump's feelings" ones.

[Krayt]

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize (...) Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations

Well, for hot air specialists on both sides, we've already done this! I explained in detail in my "Apology from, not on behalf of, the US" a few weeks ago, pointing out how our own domestic politicians, hyperbolating the joys of coming to the US as the shining city on the hill, a thing I believe, but they do not, to alter domestic census redistricting, which includes illegal or undocumented, reader pick, and Europe pols saw that success and, chimpanzee-like, adopting without understanding the backdrop, began wholesale importation, but, their nations, without the counting of undocumented towards redistricting, had all the facade glory and none of the benefits, "Sorry about that."

So we've had a monster finger in their pie already, and recently.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash 1, when the Russians run your sorry socialist asses over, call us. We'll bail you out a third time.

[CountmontyC]

Personally I believe next time Europe calls we laugh at them and hang up the phone.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, with like-minded useful idiots like Eurotrash 1, they'd invite the Russians in and hail them as ideological liberators. They would not call for help.

Then the question is: Does RUS dominating europe represent a direct threat to the vital interests of the US?

The answer is yes. Which would put us in the challenging position of 'helping' a bunch of ingrates who did not ask for help.

[OpinionsVary]

Wait, I'm confused. Why would Martinned invite the Russian's in? Your position is that Martinned is very left wing. Russia isn't Communist any more. It's hard right nationalist. Shouldn't Martinned therefore be against Russia entering Europe?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Never forget that the Austrians invited Hitler in.

[Malika la Maize]

Not all of them.

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

Enough with this collectivist nonsense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

98% of Austrians invited Hitler in.
https://deeprootsathome.com/kitty-werthmann-her-riveting-true-story/

I met her personally.

[Malika la Maize]

Is there no end to your gullible dimness?

“A sham referendum on the Anschluss with Germany was held in German-occupied Austria on 10 April 1938,[1] alongside one in Germany.[2] German troops had already occupied Austria one month earlier, on 12 March 1938”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Austrian_Anschluss_referendum

[David Nieporent]

Is there no end to your gullible dimness?

I can attest that there is not.

[Krayt]

I have an ancestor who got a silver star killing Nazis during the Battle of the Bulge. I do not look fondly on Nazis. Nazis are not my "peeps". Looking fondly on Hitler, Jr., who duplicates to the letter Hitler's rationales in the run up to war is not something I look wistfully to.

[OpinionsVary]

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Hilter was Austrian and was 'invited' into German where he built his power base?

But even taking it your way - Austria inviting in Germany - the truth is Austria as 'the first victim of Nazi aggression' was pretty much post-war propaganda. The Anschluss vote was rigged but it would have easily passed even if it hadn't been (if not to the same farcical degree as the the rigged version). The public wasn't tricked by a trojan Hitler horse who pretended to be nice. They broadly supported it, invasion and all. Yes there were resistance fighters but they were a small minority.

[Bob from Ohio]

"es there were resistance fighters but they were a small minority."

As everywhere in Europe but Yugoslavia.

Mass "resistance" was a post war myth.

[bernard11]

Mass "resistance" was a post war myth.

True. Everyone's grandfather, it seems, was in the resistance. Amazing the Nazi regime lasted as long as it did.

[Kazinski]

Completely disregarding Hitler, it wasn't crazy at all for Austria to merge with Germany.

Germany was a collection of German Principalities for over 1000 years under the Holy Roman Empire, based in Vienna Austria, which was also German, for at least 500. Then Germany didn't become a country until 1871, and modern Austria didn't exist until 1918 when it split from Hungary and became a democracy.

And of course Germany only became a democracy in 1918 to when the Kaiser, the Prussian royal family was deposed.

So you had 2 German speaking countries, newly "democratic" for only 30 years, after 1000 years of being a union of principalities with an supposedly elected Emperor in Austria
In fact here is a list of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, all of them except Bohemia was German:

Electorate of Bavaria
Kingdom of Bohemia
Electorate of Cologne
Electorate of Trier
Electorate of Hanover
Electorate of Mainz
Electoral Palatinate
Electorate of Saxony

Russia of course was as almost far from Europe as America, and more isolated until the last 150 years.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it wasn't crazy at all for Austria to merge with Germany."

No, Austria without its empire was a small, poor, weak nation with an outsized capital city.

[Kazinski]

Which of course would explain why they would want to merge with Germany.

But they had several periods even during the Imperial period where they were close to collapse.

1683 they were close to collapse when the Turks besieged them and the were rescued by the Poles.

1704 they were facing a Franco-Bavarian army, until England and the Netherlands sent 65,000 men to beat the French-Bavarians

in both 1740 and 1860 they lost a war to the Prussians, in between that Napoleon beat them and ended the Holy Roman Empire.

[Commenter_XY]

The Communists never left. They simply changed the badges on their uniforms. And they're corrupt AF.

As an aside...The corrupt kleptocrats of RUS are a perfect match to the corrupt kleptocrats of UKR.

[OpinionsVary]

It's true that many members of the current ruling Russian elite were formally part of the communist state apparatus. Putin is famously ex-KGB for example. But as part of the post Soviet transition, they seem have kept the authoritarianism, jettisoned any actual communist ideology and replaced it with right wing nationalism. I mean, Putin is out there passing laws against gay propaganda while the standard Trump talking point is the left wanting to turn your kids into trans-gay-dragqueens or whatever. It's pretty clear that modern Russia and modern Putin bares little resemblances to either the western left or their communist past. They are, however, quite a good match for the right wing authoritarian strongman types.

[Commenter_XY]

Putin is a badge changer. And corrupt AF. And a very dangerous opponent.

[not guilty]

"Putin is a badge changer. And corrupt AF. And a very dangerous opponent."

Then why on earth do you suck up to his lapdog Donald Trump, XY?

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's pretty clear that modern Russia and modern Putin bears little resemblances to either the western left or their communist past."

Modern Russia is what Communist Russia was, without the ideological camouflage, that's all. The end state where the excuses are dispensed with, and the oppressors know themselves for what they are.

“'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others ; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'”

The Western Left are at the start of the road Putin has arrived at the end of. They still need the excuses to salve their consciences. But it's the same road.

[not guilty]

What speakers and source materials are you quoting, Brett?

[Life of Brian]

Sadly, lmgtfy.com is a shadow of its former snarky self, so here's my slightly more pedestrian 10-second gift to you. Try to scrape up a shred of intellectual curiosity and try it yourself next time!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+are+not+interested+in+the+good+of+others+%3B+we+are+interested+solely+in+power%22

[Sarcastr0]

Communism is a political and economic system. It's not some group of dudes that suck.

Brett joins those lumping every ideology he doesn't like together. It's childish.

So childish he quotes fucking O'Brien for truth. Way to miss the point of the whole fucking book!

The Western Left are at the start of the road Putin has arrived at the end of
All bad things in history are merely weapons to attack the left.
Remember when Obama was an IslamoCommie?

[Brett Bellmore]

Communism is a political and economic system which never exists in reality, exists only as mask for, yeah, some group of dudes who suck. Over and over it has proven to be that.

And this has been obvious for so many decades that anybody who promotes communism today is presumptively aspiring to be a dude who sucks.

[OpinionsVary]

I never quite expected to see "Real communism has never been tried!!!" from the right wing. It's normally a tanky left talking point.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it has been tried, on the level of communes. Not on the level of nations, because the takeover of the revolutionary movement by sociopaths who just want to rule proceeds too fast for the true believers to ever end up in power.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pretty sure there've been countries that were legit communist.

They were bad BECAUSE they were communist (utopia justifies the means is a bad way to be), not bad and lying about being communist.

As was noted, your tact looks a lot like apologizing for communism.

[Joe_dallas]

OpinionsVary 4 hours ago
"I never quite expected to see "Real communism has never been tried!!!" from the right wing. It's normally a tanky left talking point."

That comment coming from the right side of the political spectrum is simply mocking the left's belief that communism and/or various version of socialism havent not actually worked because real communism or real socialism hasnt been done correctly.

[bernard11]

That comment coming from the right side of the political spectrum is simply mocking the left's belief that communism and/or various version of socialism havent not actually worked because real communism or real socialism hasnt been done correctly.

"The left's belief."

"The left" in fact has no such belief. I suppose there are some extremists who believe that, but they are a very small minority.

You are pulling a Bellmore here, conflating "the left" with a handful of nuts who have zero influence.

They are not unlike the zealots who claim real anarcho-capitalism, or Randism, has never really been tried.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I never quite expected to see "Real communism has never been tried!!!" from the right wing."

It has been tried. And every time it's tried, it turns into a totalitarian government run by a bunch of people who suck.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 2 hours ago

""The left" in fact has no such belief. I suppose there are some extremists who believe that, but they are a very small minority."

Cutting through all the fancy rhetoric, that is to a large degree exactly most of the left belief.

[David Nieporent]

Cutting through all the fancy rhetoric, that is to a large degree exactly most of the left belief.

bookkeeper_joe learned that in the same high school biology class that made him an expert in climatology.

[not guilty]

Real Communism "has been tried. And every time it's tried, it turns into a totalitarian government run by a bunch of people who suck."

If the book of Acts of Apostles is to believe, communism predated Karl Marx by at least 17 centuries. From Acts Chapter 2 (RSV):

41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.
46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

From Chapter 4 (RSV):

31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.
32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.
33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold
35 and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

As for "it turn[ing] into a totalitarian government run by a bunch of people who suck", that did devolve into popery and was co-opted by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century.

[Joe_dallas]

in reply to opinions vary - Russia remains basically a leftwing fascist dictatorship. Communism, socialism, leftist regimes, all share one common trait which is a varying form of dictatorship. Characterizing Russia and Putin as right wing is pure dishonesty.

[Malika la Maize]

“Russia remains basically a leftwing fascist dictatorship”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, all the militarism, machismo, anti-gay, anti-woke, pro Orthodox Church, etc., positions of the Putin regime just scream left wing!

You’re a ridiculous person.

[Joe_dallas]

only ridiculous to those who have no concept of history and reality.

[Malika la Maize]

Non-responsive to the many examples I gave. Ridiculous.

[Joe_dallas]

Fully responsive to your inane comment which was not even remotely addressing the facts.

[Malika la Maize]

All those are demonstrable characteristics of Putin’s regime, easily verifiable, you just have no response. You said something ridiculous and now cannot defend it.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika la Maize 2 hours ago
"All those are demonstrable characteristics of Putin’s regime, easily verifiable, you just have no response. You said something ridiculous and now cannot defend it."

Characteristics of a leftist facist regime - dont misuse terms and concepts.

[Sarcastr0]

Just because you get so easily distracted, I'll highlight the meat of the comment you replied to: "militarism, machismo, anti-gay, anti-woke, pro Orthodox Church, etc."

Are you going to argue those things are left wing or immaterial to the political spectrum?

[Joe_dallas]

No - you failed to notice that Malika changed the topic and then misrepresented the terminology.

At some point in time you might develop the ability to have a coherent and meaningful discussion.

[Sarcastr0]

This you: "Russia remains basically a leftwing fascist dictatorship"

Malika's comment was absolutely on point for that 'every bad thing is leftist' bit of nonsense.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
This you: "Russia remains basically a leftwing fascist dictatorship"

"Malika's comment was absolutely on point for that 'every bad thing is leftist' bit of nonsense."

you have to seriously torture historical facts to reach such an inane comparison

[Kazinski]

Which perfectly describes the Soviet Union too, except for being pro-orthodox, that's exactly what the Soviet Union was.

[bernard11]

Communism, socialism, leftist regimes, all share one common trait which is a varying form of dictatorship. Characterizing Russia and Putin as right wing is pure dishonesty.

I thought you regarded the kind of social democracies that exist in much of Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. as socialist. Am I wrong, or do you consider them dictatorships?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Does RUS dominating europe represent a direct threat to the vital interests of the US? The answer is yes."

Show your work.

Not going to happen anyways. Its too weak, it has to import NoKo soldiers and now Indian workers.

[OpinionsVary]

I thought the current Trump line was that the idea Russia would attack Europe is farcical and, in fact, worrying about it inflaming tensions? See pulling troops out of Romania.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" Kimo-Sabe??

[Commenter_XY]

We (The USA). A third time.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm USA, I'm not with you

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter_XY 3 hours ago
"Eurotrash 1, when the Russians run your sorry socialist asses over, call us. We'll bail you out a third time."

Eurotrash wont need to let the russians run over their ass. Western Europe has basically done it to themselves via the rapid immigration of a society that hates western culture. At some point, those enlightened compassionate western european countries will beg Russia to come in and save them from the catastrophe they invited.

[Sarcastr0]

immigration of a society that hates western culture

Ignoring the red flag that is 'western culture' what society do you mean exactly?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 15 minutes ago
" Ignoring the red flag that is 'western culture' what society do you mean exactly?"

Are you attempting to ask a legitimate question or just displaying complete ignorance? Though it remains a reasonable question why anyone bothers responding to your inane commentary. Same goes for responding to malika's inane commentary.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey you didn't answer the question just got huffy.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 12 minutes ago
"Oh hey you didn't answer the question just got huffy."

I didnt answer your question because it was stupid which is standard procedure for you. Try to ask an intelligent question and you will get a reasonable response.

[Sarcastr0]

Still didn't answer.

What society that hates western culture do you mean exactly?

[Joe_dallas]

No - I am not going to answer your stupid question.

Especially a question that you already know the answer or at least should know the answer. There is absolutely no reason to waste time to educate you on a topic that you should already know.

[Malika la Maize]

He can’t answer, as usual.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would it make a difference to either you or Il Douche?

[Joe_dallas]

Neither Malika or DouchII are attempting to have an intelligent discussion.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what society do you mean exactly?"

Islamic of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Islam is a very broad group of people with varying points of view, so that can't be it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha!
Islam=world wide Caliphate, period!

[not guilty]

The most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia. Does anyone there hope to install a world wide Caliph, Bumble?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah it sucks. It’s also not going to have any practical impact on anything. It’s a white nationalist document put out by the Stephen Miller faction.
Don’t listen to the bitter hater man who has no interest in the future of the GOP and who couldn’t win a popularity contest in a room alone.

[DDHarriman]

The Monroe Doctrine is White Nationalistisms put out by a POC Jew!!!

Will someone please think of the White Supremacies!?!?!?!

[not guilty]

President James Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams were POC Jews?

Who knew?

[DDHarriman]

Steven Miller whom Sarcastr0 was referring too.

Please put on your safety helmet before responding again. This is embarrassing.

[not guilty]

Steven Miller did not propound the Monroe Doctrine, doofus.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sounds like Vance, not Miller.

[Sarcastr0]

"certain NATO members will become majority non-European"

Nah, that's Miller.

Vance is just general inferiority complex 'you think you're too good for me?!!'. It's hardly an ethos.

The white nationalist bigotry angle is Miller.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you could call the Nation that lost millions of young men freeing you Pussies from the Nazi's an "Ally"
Might want to decide on Shit-ite or Sunni, we ain't doing it again.
One word (OK Two)
"Prayer Rugs"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget the first and third times -- inside of 80 years -- 1911-1991 -- we had to save Europe three times.

No mas!

[DDHarriman]

Get off our teats. We don't subsidize red-diaper-doper babies anymore.

Pay for your own shit.

[Riva]

Well Marty, it was nice having western civilization in Europe. Unfortunately, Europe’s self interested leadership has told the continent to put its civilization where the sun don’t shine, along with all the little things that some people seemed to appreciate like freedom of speech, the ability to enjoy a Christmas fair without being murdered, or a taking a walk in the park without being raped.

[Malika la Maize]

The US rape rate is higher than that of the Netherlands.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime

[Dr. Ed 2]

REPORTED rape rate.

[Mr. Bumble]

@Qualika:
Your link is 11 years old.
See this link:
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/rape-statistics-by-country
For some reason the Netherlands is not listed but according to this the rate/100,000 for the US is 4.14 and for Denmark (Netherlands neighbor and similar in make up) it's 3.99/100,000.

[Riva]

Faulty statistical comparisons can raise many questions, not the least of which is our Muslim friends practice rape the old fashioned way, not modern variations redefining any regrettably one night stands or flirtations as “rape.” And of course, old fashioned rape is just one of the benefits of the new diversity.

[hobie]

More proof that this National Security Strategy - like the pro-Russian Ukraine peace plan - was written by the Russian handlers:

[page 27]
"Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:

--- "ENDING THE PERCEPTION, AND PREVENTING THE REALITY, OF NATO AS A PERPETUALLY EXPANDING ALLIANCE"

WT absolute F?!!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There has been an outcry over the National Security Strategy, with Europeans and other U.S. allies warning that they can no longer trust the U.S. Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk posted on social media: “Dear American friends, Europe is your closest ally, not your problem. And we have common enemies. At least that’s how it has been in the last 80 years. We need to stick to this, this is the only reasonable strategy of our common security. Unless something has changed.”

https://substack.com/inbox/post/181019159

more:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-180863744

[Bob from Ohio]

"(from a Dutch perspective)"
I fondly recall al the help from Holland in the War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, etc.

[Armchair]

Weren't you just whining there weren't enough American jets fighting for Europe?

[Kazinski]

Jaime Dimon:

"Europe was at 90% of US GDP per capita, now its at 65%. We didn't do that to them, they did it to theirselves."

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, after years of rampant legal violations, the Commission has finally fined Twitter under the DSA. Here is a short analysis of this decision: https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-digital-services-act-main-character.html

And yes, it is an excellent question why the European Commission still posts on Twitter. https://euroblog.jonworth.eu/musk-wants-to-abolish-the-eu-while-european-commissioners-keep-posting-on-x/

[Mr. Bumble]

"And yes, it is an excellent question why the European Commission still posts on Twitter."
Because like politicians and bureaucrats everywhere, they are hypocrites?

[DDHarriman]

Quick send billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops to protect these European bureaucrats who are censoring Americans IMMEDIATELY!!!

EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING AND DEFEND OUR NATION'S GREAT ALLY...THE PEOPLE CENSORING AMERICANS!!!

[Armchair]

Maybe the US should fine the Netherlands for 50 years worth of not pulling its weight in NATO.

Let's see... Dutch GDP currently just around 1 trillion, at least 1% of GDP shortfall in spending, 50 years.... Call it $500 Billion due. Payment in gold, silver, or platinum.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Minneapolis police chief is gewtting into dangerous territory.

https://www.ms.now/news/minneapolis-police-chief-unlawful-force-ice-jobs

“If unlawful force is being used by any law enforcement officer against any person in this city and one of our officers is there, absolutely, I expect them to intervene, or they’ll be fired,” O’Hara said when asked how his officers should respond to excessive force by ICE agents.

O’Hara noted that cases of “excessive” force that were “readily apparent” would merit officer intervention. A sergeant from O’Hara’s department later clarified that while Minneapolis Police Department officers may physically intervene in the case of unlawful force, they would stop short of arresting ICE agents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for ICE to start arresting cops ....

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you miss this?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-illegal-alien-serving-local-police-officer-after-attempting-unlawfully

[SRG2]

Let's turn this around. "If city police see Federal agents breaking the law and using violence against our citizens, we will do nothing to stop them."

You would rather the chief had said that, clearly.

[Z Crazy]

Should the Arkanseas police arrested the soldiers of the 101st Airborne for trespassing into Littlerock High?

[Michael Ejercito]

Good point!

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/12/07/were-not-backing-down-owner-of-pro-ice-idaho-saloon-undeterred-by-violent-threats/

Ok, this article made me wonder about something.

Could a state, say The People's Republic of NJ, offer citizens a bounty of $1,000 to ID illegal aliens, paid upon successful apprehension of the illegal alien? Is that legal?

Could the fed gov't offer citizens a bounty of $1,000 to ID illegal aliens, paid upon successful apprehension of the illegal alien? Is that constitutional?

This bar owner better have paid up life insurance, and be a strong supporter of 2A in the case of self-defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both would be legal. What would also be legal, would be for the administration to create a program where illegals who reported their employers to the government got a bounty and a 6 month waiver of immigration enforcement. Not a work permit, just assurance of benefiting from discretion. So that an illegal alien could remain indefinitely and well paid, too, as long as they burned one employer after another.

[OpinionsVary]

If you actually wanted to fight illegal immigration, such a employer bounty would actually be highly effective. Maybe also let them sue for retroactive minimum wage back pay?

[Sarcastr0]

If you actually wanted to fight illegal immigration

Just as with abortion and antisemitism, these are not problems they want to solve they are excuses.

The GOP has become a delivery device purely for:
- binding the outgroup and protecting the ingroup.
- fascism-flavored content creation that has no actual effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize you don't want to admit that the previous administration abjectly failed at securing the border, and let millions of illegal aliens flood the country, because that's what they intended to do.

But nobody really cares about your pretense that it wasn't deliberate.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone that doesn't do policy exactly like you want it is a leftist doing a conspiracy.

This is what you need to believe to allow you to support MAGA doing performative cruelty, but not actually much else.

And you really really seem to want to support the cruelty.

[Brett Bellmore]

If I rob a bank it's not cruel to take the bags of money away from me. If I squat in somebody's house, it's not cruel to evict me. And if I illegally enter and/or remain in another country it's not cruel to deport me. It's not cruel to take from people what they never had a right to in the first place, just stole.

EVERY illegal alien gets deported. Every single solitary one.

Maybe if we weren't at the end of decades of selective enforcement, we could afford to make exceptions. But we ARE at the far end of those decades, with the widespread and entrenched perception that our immigration laws are just pro forma, and can be violated without consequence.

And we need to reestablish that they WILL be enforced, no matter what excuses you make, no matter how long you manage to hide before you're caught. You WILL be thrown out on your ass as soon as you are caught.

We need to make people around the world believe that we have borders again, and making exceptions is counterproductive under these circumstances.

[Malika la Maize]

Cruelty isn’t limited to violations of rights. To take a timely example I don’t think Dickens thought Scrooge violated any legal right of Cratchit’s but he thought his treatment of him cruel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bad example, because Cratchit hadn't done anything wrong.

Scrooge could have been paying him more, sure. Cratchit could have gone looking for a better employer, too. But in the end, there really isn't a good analogy between somebody being badly paid for lawful work, and somebody being deprived of ill gotten gains.

[Sarcastr0]

You support Lochner. So you're on Scrooge's side here.

ill gotten gains.
That doesn't have jack shit to do with performative cruelty.
There's something weirdly puritanical about the right's take on policy these days.

[not guilty]

How differently would history have turned out if Gaius Turranius had declared "Make the Roman Province of Egypt Great Again!" and sent Mary, Joseph and Jesus back to King Herod?

[bernard11]

if I illegally enter and/or remain in another country it's not cruel to deport me. It's not cruel to take from people what they never had a right to in the first place, just stole.

Nobody stole anything.

What a rigid, formalistic, approach. Of course it can be cruel to deport an illegal alien. You may argue that it's legal, but it's certainly cruel in a great many instances. To take someone who's been here for many years, never been in trouble, worked, etc. and send them back to a country where they no longer know anyone, etc. is blatantly cruel. This is, of course, especially true for those who came here at an early age.

Don't believe me? Well, you're a Roman Catholic. Why not ask the Pope what he thinks? Or read the New Testament?

And what is the excuse for this cruelty? They crossed the border illegally. BFD. Apparently, for you, this is the only offense, besides murder, that has no statute of limitations. It is unforgiveable.

[DDHarriman]

>Everyone that doesn't do policy exactly like you want it is a leftist doing a conspiracy.

Don't forget all the data and all the public statements!

Those help also correctly classify the mass importation of brown people into White countries as intentional.

Don't forget all that evidence and stuff.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s bad enough to forget the maxim about ascribing malice where incompetence would suffice, but there’s also another easy explanation for Biden’s fail on immigration: overreaction to what many on the left saw as the cruelty of Trump’s enforcement efforts.

IMHO, Democrats mocked Romney with his self deportation approach but that’s the one they themselves should have adopted. You have to control immigration, and fining businesses that employ illegal labor effectively would likely dry a lot of that up without the enforcement many on the left probably wouldn’t stomach. But they whiffed on that.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm saying that they whiffed on it deliberately.

[Malika la Maize]

Well, yeah, that’s the nature of the partisan conspiracy theorist, latching onto theories that center on subversive bad guys when there are others with explanatory value available.

[DDHarriman]

What other explanations do you have for what we saw/see happening?

Make sure it covers all the documented evidence we've seen.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, I offered two just a few comments up!

How come our white supremacists have such inferior intellect? Stop speaking for us, please!

[DDHarriman]

That doesn't explain the debit cards, the bussing, the free airline tickets and security passes, nor the free apartments, the disability fraud, or all the other elite citizenship benefits conferred like being able to vote multiple times.

Why didn't you know I was talking about the entirety of actions take by the Left to support the invasion?

[Malika la Maize]

It explains it, they were overreacting to Trump’s perceived cruel efforts and once people were here trying to be compassionate (naively in some cases).

[DDHarriman]

So they were reacting to a future threat from candidate Trump who was under indictment and appearing in several Democrat show trials?

lmao retard

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Biden took office, and the border changed from a trickle to a flood in a matter of a couple of months. That's absolutely a policy change, much as Sarcastr0 denies it. A MASSIVE policy change.

Then he had most of 4 years to fix the situation, and did nothing until a few months prior to the election, when it became clear the issue was hurting him. Thus demonstrating that he was perfectly capable of securing the border all along.

That's enough to prove it was deliberate.

I'll add that a party can't brag about how demographic change is going to inevitably transform the nation into one where they are a permanent majority, take actions that accelerate demographic change, and expect anybody to actually believe they're not deliberate.

[Malika la Maize]

“ That's enough to prove it was deliberate.”

Not when there are other explanations available.

“but there’s also another easy explanation for Biden’s fail on immigration: overreaction to what many on the left saw as the cruelty of Trump’s enforcement efforts.”

[Bwaaah]

Your counter affirms a theory that it was deliberate, and not the result of incompetence, but of just motive.

[Malika la Maize]

More like not having the stomach to do what might be necessary and/or not wanting to be doing things “like Trump did.” Just doing the opposite of what a disliked former administration did is rarely a good policy foundation.

[Bwaaah]

"Just doing the opposite of what a disliked former administration did is rarely a good policy foundation."

Not a good policy foundation (although that doesn't make the policy wrong policy either). But it's a powerful mechanism for energizing your political base.

I find DJT so offensive that it's easy for me to understand the counter-reaction. Defending the weak from attack is more than just a nice idea to me.

[Michael P]

Incompetence wouldn't suffice.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/biden-immigration-legacy
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-than-500k-immigrants-missed-court-hearings-bidens-watch-analysis

[Malika la Maize]

As I’m sure you’ve been told many times, incompetence almost always suffices.

[DDHarriman]

Is 'incompetence' also building them apartments and giving them years of free rent like some Democrat states have done?

[Malika la Maize]

Well, that would t be Biden, would it? As to those states, see my answer above.

[DDHarriman]

It's weird that Biden's mass immigration policy was just incompetence, but his fellow governors were intentional and conspiring...

Yeah dude that totally makes sense that this massive clearly coordinated effort was accidental on the Fed side, but totally engineered on the State side.

Why can't you bugs reason like a human?

[Joe_dallas]

The failure of bidens immigration policy was due to the unofficial open invitation.

[Commenter_XY]

I have precisely zero sympathy for Americans who knowingly employ illegal aliens. They are exploiting illegal aliens for personal profit; jail those employers w/o bail until a trial. I can understand an illegal alien who comes here to work and try and get a better life; who would not do the same? Still, they are criminals b/c they broke the law. But the exploiting employer...no, they know exactly what they are doing, and I don't understand or forgive that; one punishes that behavior severely.

Considering the employment side of the equation:

Could a state or fed gov't offer US citizens a bounty of $5,000 to ID employers who employ illegal aliens, to be paid upon successful apprehension of illegal aliens identified as employed by those employers? (IOW, if you know an employer is exploiting a specific illegal alien(s), can one get paid for reporting it)?

[bernard11]

Sure. And there might still be a few Stasi retirees who would be helpful in setting up and running the program.

[David Nieporent]

They are exploiting illegal aliens

No; they're employing illegal aliens.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe also let them sue for retroactive minimum wage back pay?

Illegal immigrants are already allowed to, and routinely do, do exactly that.

[PaulS]

There is no desire to solve the employment issue. Here is how it works in the construction industry.
A person incorporates ABC co and goes to the state owned workers comp company. - they say I'm going to start a drywall, roofing, steel erection ...company with 4 employees. Great says the state comp co - that will cost 5k for a year. They pay this. They then go out and hire 400-600 people and subcontract work to other constructions firms. The construction firms aren't making more doing this - they are just staying competitive with everyone else - stop and they are out of business. The checks from these firms are cashed at liquor stores in the city (drug money laundered?) and the people are paid in cash. No taxes are paid. After 9-10 months the company is closed and a new one (XYZ inc) is opened. No one ever audits a business that went under in less than a year. It is impossible for an american company to compete using american workers. This is why construction is shut down when ICE is around.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - The Hispanic population dominates the construction industry in vast swaths of the country. It is an industry that is excellent for low skilled, middle skilled and high skilled workers. there is a large segment of the available labor pool that has largely been abandoned by a segment of the population that has much higher than average unemployment rates.

[Kazinski]

They are already working on drywall robots, which is a great idea, at least for new construction.

When I built my house I came to loath drywall. I did make a hinged jig out of 2x4 and 1x2 to lift the drywall to the ceiling and hold it their when I screwed it in, but for the walls and cathedral ceiling I used 3/4 pine rather than drywall, looks nicer and is actually cheaper when considering the labor, and the headache.

[Magister]

You should have gotten a drywall lift.

[Kazinski]

Why, when I could build my own for 10$, and don't have to return it, or buy something I only I need a couple of weeks

That of course Is where I got the idea from.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Could a state, say The People's Republic of NJ, offer citizens a bounty of $1,000 to ID illegal aliens, paid upon successful apprehension of the illegal alien? Is that legal?"
You do know that Mikie Sherrill won the governorship, right?
More likely that the bounty would be on anyone reporting illegal aliens to ICE.

[Commenter_XY]

Turn on your irony meter. 😛

[Malika la Maize]

Former NFL wide receiver Antonio Brown filed a motion this week to dismiss the second-degree attempted murder charge against him in Miami, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” law. The motion was filed electronically with the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County on Thursday by Brown’s attorney, Mark Eiglarsh.

Brown is accused of snatching a handgun from a security official at a May boxing match in Miami and firing shots. Brown allegedly engaged in an altercation earlier in the night, and video appeared to capture him chasing after a man, Zul-Qarnain Kwame Nantambu, while holding a black pistol.

Eiglarsh said last month that Brown was holding his own handgun and didn’t fire in anyone’s direction…

According to Brown’s motion, Nantambu previously stole Brown’s jewelry and spent 30 days in jail in Dubai in 2022 as a result, and Nantambu attacked Brown at a concert in 2023. The motion argues that Brown’s use of force was “fully justified” because he believed Nantambu intended to harm him.
Police questioned several people at the scene, and Brown was briefly detained. No arrests were made at the time, and no injuries were reported, according to The Associated Press. Later that night, Brown wrote on social media that he had been jumped “by multiple individuals who tried to steal my jewelry and cause physical harm to me.” He also said he had not been arrested, but Miami police issued an arrest warrant for Brown shortly thereafter.

The former wide receiver evaded authorities for more than four months. During that time, Brown, 37, posted frequently on social media, including 13 Instagram posts showing him in a luxury sports car, at a barbershop and lounging poolside.
U.S. Marshals apprehended Brown in Dubai in early November and extradited him to the U.S. Brown’s lawyer filed a not guilty plea on his behalf, and he was released from a Miami jail in mid-November.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6868526/2025/12/06/antonio-brown-case-dismissal-attempted-murder-charge/

[Frank Drackman]

"Zul-Qarnain Kwame Nantambu"??
Let me guess,
Black guy??

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

This is, appropriately, a "hail Mary pass".

Trivially, stand your ground doesn't apply to chasing somebody.

[Malika la Maize]

Clever first line!

[jb]

"Trivially, stand your ground doesn't apply to chasing somebody."

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, a victim of the narrative, who actually believes the made up scenario of Zimmerman following and attacking Martin, which was comprehensively demolished in court.

Martin returned to initiate the confrontation with Zimmerman, (Who didn't follow him.) and was not shot until he had already attacked Zimmerman, and was pounding his head into the pavement. Stand your ground had nothing to do with the verdict, it was straight up conventional self defense.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : (Who didn't follow him.)

Uh huh.

"Zimmerman later acknowledged exiting his vehicle and said he walked to a nearby T-intersection to see which direction Martin had gone and to obtain an address. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "Yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m"

Zimmerman promised the police dispatcher he would give the arriving cops Martin's location. They should call him when they arrived on the scene. That was because he was stalking Martin. That was because he had a gun and decided to play GI Joe or Dick Tracy or whatever fantasy his firearm helped blaze into glory.

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Zimmerman: Severely injured, broken nose, contusions on the back of his head.

Martin: Scuffed knuckles and a fatal gunshot wound.

It was not hard to figure out who attacked who, or that Martin was shot after beating Zimmerman within an inch of his life.

I'll say this again: Stand your ground had nothing to do with the case. It was plain vanilla self defense by somebody being beaten to death.

Opponents of Stand Your Ground just tried to leverage the case to attack the law, that's all. But it had nothing to do with the case.

[jb]

"I'll say this again: Stand your ground had nothing to do with the case. It was plain vanilla self defense by somebody being beaten to death."

I dunno. If a guy with a gun was chasing me at night, I might try to do something to stop him from killing me too.

You're listing the results of what happened after Zimmerman chased Martin, which is completely separate from whether Martin beat him up or not. As grb notes above, not only did Zimmerman chase him, but he did so despite the police telling him not to.

[grb]

For that matter, Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed as part his neighborhood watch program. The rules specifically forbade that - surely to prevent just the kind of pointless tragedy that occurred here.

Zimmerman had to address the issue at his trial. He did so by claiming he wasn't doing a neighborhood sweep at all. Instead, he was armed because of a shopping errand to (as I recall) Home Depot. Needless to say, that's perfectly understandable. We all know how dicey things can get between the lumber and tool aisles. Any man (if he's a true manly man) will want to have gun at hand and ready, particularly if he dares to boldly venture into the lighting section.

And why didn't he stay in his vehicle as the police dispatcher instructed? Of course we all know the reason. With his gun, this twit felt ready for an exciting adventure stalking a total stranger thru the night's darkness. But he didn't want to say that. Instead, he claimed he needed to verify his location. Uh huh. There was an road intersection sign right besides where he parked his truck.

The point is this : We have two people, killer & killed, but only the former got to tell his side. And that telling frequently strained credulity.

[CountmontyC]

Zimmerman possessed a valid concealed carry permit and thus was legally carrying. Whether you think he needed to carry is irrelevant and the fact that he was brutally assaulted and beaten suggests he was wise to be carrying.
As to what the 911 dispatcher ( not police) advised Zimmerman had already left his vehicle and after the 911 dispatcher advised ( as I pointed out in my previous post the dispatcher had no authority to give Zimmerman any orders) Zimmerman started to return to his vehicle before Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Simply put if Martin had simply returned to his home and called the police if he truly had felt himself in danger instead of confronting and assaulting Zimmerman he would not have been shot. I will also point out that if Zimmerman had not shot Martin that Martin would have faced felony assault charges at the very least.

[CountmontyC]

Martin was a good distance away from Zimmerman and could easily have returned to his residence without ever even being in danger. Instead he backtracked and confronted Zimmerman. Furthermore after the 911 dispatcher ( not the police) advised ( because the dispatcher had zero authority to give Zimmerman any orders) to not follow Zimmerman started to return to his vehicle. Also I sincerely doubt Martin knew that Zimmerman ( who had a concealed carry permit) was armed otherwise he would not have confronted Zimmerman as he did and would more likely have called the police on his cellphone ( and yes we know he had one). Finally the first act of actual violence was Martin assaulting Zimmerman.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm listing the results of what happened after Martin returned to confront Zimmerman, attacked him, and got shot. I don't care if you want to believe in some fantasy where an overweight guy armed with a gun chased down a young black man, started a fight with him, and viciously pummeled the guy's fists with his face, using the pavement to increase to force of his blows, before finishing up with the gun he had all along.

[Joe_dallas]

jb 4 hours ago
"Trivially, stand your ground doesn't apply to chasing somebody."
"Tell that to Trayvon Martin."

JB - your comment would have had value if it wasnt based on a flat out lie.
Its also well known lie which you repeated.

[Kazinski]

Brown is entitled to the same process as George Zimmerman was:

"After 16 hours of deliberations over the course of two days, on July 13, 2013, a six-person jury rendered a not guilty verdict on both charges (including manslaughter)"

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Trivially, stand your ground doesn't apply to chasing somebody."

In Whitestown, Indiana, there's a case about to go to trial where a couple showed-up at a house they were (supposedly) hired to clean, but had been taken to the wrong location by GPS. While standing at the entry trying to find a key that worked from the set they'd been given, the home's owner fired through the door without warning, killing Ríos Pérez, mother of four.

Trivially, that doesn't sound like stand your ground would apply. But the killer's attorney insists it does and will. And he's a well-known "gun rights lawyer" so - who knows? - he could be right.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2025/12/04/stand-your-ground-law-whitestown-shooting-indiana/87585963007/

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose when you've got a client who's open and shut guilty, you throw everything you've got up against the wall, and hope it sticks.

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder what the motive was.

What was this homeowner trying to hide?

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming you're stupid enough to do something like this, wanting to hide something is hardly the only plausible motive.

[Commenter_XY]

Surprising exactly no one, hamas has still failed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreement. And now wishes to renege, altogether. A typical palestinian.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/418975

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal renews calls for Israel’s destruction, rejecting Trump’s peace plan and UN demands to disarm

Hopefully, the Israelis will be successful the next time they try to kill Khaled Mashaal. And there will be a next time, I am quite sure.

The war is over when both sides say it is. This war is not over, regardless of what The Donald says. The human animals known as hamas will be disarmed, or they will killed in place.

Turkey should have thought about this; no way they get F-35s.

[jb]

"A typical palestinian"

I'll note that folks go to great lengths to try to turn any criticism of Israel or Zionism into antisemitism, but here we have XY being explicitly anti-Palestinean, and no one raises a peep.

It's super disappointing to see Trumpism show up not just as people supporting whatever dumb policy of the day comes out of his mouth, but also smart folks here who presumably would have thought better of themselves a few years ago engaging in casual racism in public.

[SRG2]

Does that mean that (gasp!) Trump's Gaza peace deal wasn't the peace he claimed?

[Bob from Ohio]

It was an Israeli victory settlement. Got all the living and most dead hostages out. Let the IDF largely disengage

The current status quo will just continue to the detriment of the Arabs in Gaza.

[SRG2]

i.e., yes, it was not.

[Malika la Maize]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that he divested from his holdings of thousands of acres of North Dakota soybean farmland last week to comply with his federal ethics agreement.

The move will separate Mr. Bessent from properties that posed potential conflicts of interest as he leads President Trump’s trade negotiations with China, including Beijing’s commitment to buying American soybeans.

The divestment took place nearly eight months after Mr. Bessent was originally supposed to shed the assets. Federal officials are required to sell assets and investments that they could influence through their work for the U.S. government…

According to his financial disclosure forms, Mr. Bessent owned as much as $25 million of soybean and corn farmland in North Dakota. The land constitutes thousands of acres in Burleigh, Kidder, Eddy, Benson and Wells Counties and earned Mr. Bessent as much as $1 million a year in rental income.

The farmland was controlled by a limited liability partnership called High Plains Acres. According to the most recent filing with the office of North Dakota’s secretary of state, Mr. Bessent’s husband, John Freeman, was a managing partner. An official with the North Dakota secretary of state’s office said last Friday that no additional documents had been filed that would indicate a change in management of the fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/business/bessent-divest-soybean-farms-ethics.html

[Sarcastr0]

An official with the North Dakota secretary of state’s office said last Friday that no additional documents had been filed that would indicate a change in management of the fund.

They lie. Until I see proof, I'm not going to assume anything based on Bessent's say so-

[Mr. Bumble]

"They lie"? Vibes?

[Bwaaah]

Inspector Gaslight doggedly following the scent of a suspect. He'll be camping out in North Dakota until the evidence comes in.

Or maybe the news cycle will just push new fodder into one ear and whatever he's thinking out the other in 10, 9, 8...

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not trusting a bare assertion from this admin without something in writing.

Good luck with your quest to add partisan melodrama to that pretty normal position.

You act like I'm calling for his long form birth certificate!

[DDHarriman]

Yes, the US Treasury Secretary needs to prove to Sarcastr0 that he's compliant.

This is how govies think. This is the kind of govie that asserts a President needs to ask his permission to declassify something.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or fire someone.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s healthy to be skeptical of federal officials, though we get you’d rather slavishly trust them. What do their boots taste like when you lovingly lick them?

[DDHarriman]

Do you think it's possible to have a healthy skepticism without requiring every government claim to be personally verified with you?

The government makes hundreds if not thousands of claims. How do you supposed I manage the personal vetting of each one like Sarcastr0 expects?

[Malika la Maize]

Slaves gonna be slavish!

[Armchair]

You missed the important part.

"Mr. Bessent’s husband, John Freeman."

Say what now? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is openly gay? That's a major accomplishment for LGB! That's the highest ranking official in the US to ever be openly gay...just 5 steps away in the Presidential succession!

But you would never know, because he's a Republican. If Bessent was a Democrat, the NYT would be screaming this from the rooftops. But as a Republican...not a peep.

[Malika la Maize]

A capitalist with a soft spot for royalty. A deep-rooted Southerner with a fondness for stylish New York locales. A gay man, married with children, who has embraced a Republican Party that has sometimes vilified elements, and individuals, of the L.G.B.T.Q. movement.

Such are the crosscurrents coursing through the biography of Scott Bessent, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/style/scott-bessent-trump-treasury.html

[Armchair]

Buried deep within the style section....

[Malika la Maize]

In 2024 the Republican Party removed opposition to marriage equality from its platform, and the current Republican Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, is a married gay man with two children.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/opinion/gay-lesbian-trans-rights.html

[Malika la Maize]

On Friday evening, Mr. Bessent was tapped by President-elect Donald J. Trump to be his Treasury secretary. Having won the trust of Mr. Trump and his inner circle, Mr. Bessent would lead a Republican economic agenda of cutting taxes, culling federal regulations and enacting sweeping tariffs.

The selection caps an extraordinary career arc for an investor who was once a protégé of the liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros and who gave money to top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

“He was very supportive of the causes and the people that we supported,” said Will Trinkle, a Democrat who co-hosted the event with Mr. Gore. He noted that Mr. Bessent, who would be the first openly gay Treasury secretary, was a strong advocate for gay rights and marriage equality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/23/us/politics/scott-bessent-treasury-profile.html

[Malika la Maize]

Mr. Bessent, who is the first openly gay Treasury secretary, said during his confirmation hearing that he was previously turned away from public service opportunities because of his sexual orientation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/scott-bessent-treasury-secretary-vote.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so he took a public service job when offered by that noted homophobe DJT?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s bad enough I don’t know what you’re getting at, but I’m also betting you don’t either!

[Bwaaah]

I'll help you...in the partisan dialectic, when speaking as a Democrat, all Republican are homophobic.

Armchair picked up a thread that contradicts that. And you're showing everybody that the New York Times was always sensitive to gay people, even [sometimes] Republican gay people. (Even though they are really self-hating turncoats like Clarence Thomas.)

Some of us still think the New York Times has a negative bias toward Republicans. But true to their sympathies and yours, they have a positive bias for non-conventional-sexual-identity-whatevers.

[Sarcastr0]

in the partisan dialectic, when speaking as a Democrat, all Republican are homophobic.

Big words don't make you less reductionist. jb already blows this up below.
Justice Kennedy wrote the gay marriage case, does that mean Democrats think he's a Democrat?

[Bwaaah]

Okay. You win. Republicans aren't homophobic.

[Sarcastr0]

Some are, some aren't.

Don't know how this nuance is hard for you.

[Malika la Maize]

Armchair said they wouldn’t make a peep about it, I noticed they made many peeps. But you and Bumble (and later Armchair) changed the goalpost and wanted these peeps to be more sensitive to Republicans? Lord knows a recently disaffected liberal such as yourself is of course pivoting to concern about the GOP not being portrayed sensitivity enough on gay rights, but they mentioned he was a Republican and nominated by Trump many times, what else were they supposed to do?

[Armchair]

"Many peeps"

Technically speaking, it WAS mentioned in the OP that I responded to. So, "not a peep" could reasonable be interpreted to mean "Didn't really make a major story about it".

But sure, if you want to have your technicality and say "NO stupid, they did make a peep...the OP I wrote had it".

Sure.

[jb]

Trump is a lot of bad things, but as far as I can tell he's never had a problem with gay people. Then again, that used to be true with trans people too, until he realized that he could score a lot of political points vilifying them.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : " ....that noted homophobe DJT?"

You mistake Trump for someone who has any beliefs besides his latest huckster scams. Trump is only a "homophobe" to scam chumps, dupes, and rubes like you, Bumble.

You don't think he actually believes any of the bullshit he spoon-feeds the marks, do you?

[Sarcastr0]

Say what now? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is openly gay?

Yes, if you have a childlike view of humanity, demographics dictates ideology.
Armchair is this kind of simpleton, and so assumes everyone else must as well.

If Bessent was a Democrat, the NYT would be screaming this from the rooftops.
Being a political simpleton allows you to wallow in that sweet counterfactual hypocrisy that is always so easy to prove.

[Armchair]

"Armchair is this kind of simpleton, and so assumes everyone else must as well."

Trust Sarcastr0 to miss the point.

Point is, if Bessent was a Democrat, the NYT and every liberal outlet would be screaming loudly how progressive and awesome the President and Democratic party was for LGB rights and the groundbreaking precedent in such a first-time appointment.

But since he's a Republican, it gets buried deep in the style section as a pseudo footnote. Same way African Americans who are Republican get treated by the liberal press. Something to be quietly buried.

[Malika la Maize]

I posted several NYT articles outside the Style section (btw, do you think the NYT Style section is not a popular part of that paper?) so are being disingenuous?

Also, I note the goalpost shift:

“But you would never know, because he's a Republican. If Bessent was a Democrat, the NYT would be screaming this from the rooftops. But as a Republican...not a peep.”

To

“Point is, if Bessent was a Democrat, the NYT and every liberal outlet would be screaming loudly how progressive and awesome the President and Democratic party was for LGB rights and the groundbreaking precedent in such a first-time appointment.”

It goes from “not a peep” to “not a certain message!”

[Armchair]

"Also, I note the goalpost shift:"

I said "not a peep". Call it an exaggeration on my part, since technically the original story I responded to had his sexual identity. But sure...I'll give you the win.

What I remember is when Mayor Pete got his cabinet post, there were major "historic" headlines like...

"Pete Buttigieg becomes first openly gay cabinet secretary confirmed by U.S. Senate"
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/pete-buttigieg-becomes-first-openly-gay-cabinet-secretary-confirmed-by-us-sena-idUSKBN2A22IP/

"With nomination, Pete Buttigieg reflects on historic moment for LGBTQ Americans"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nomination-pete-buttigieg-reflects-historic-moment-lgbtq-americans/story?id=74762660

And full pieces on his sexual identity in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-gay.html

With Bessent....I see none of that. I see some footnotes, stories buried deep. No headlines on his sexual identity, just a line in paragraph 3.

[David Nieporent]

With Bessent....I see none of that. I see some footnotes, stories buried deep. No headlines on his sexual identity, just a line in paragraph 3.

You don't hear much about Larry Doby breaking the MLB color line. Probably because he didn't; Jackie Robinson did.

[not guilty]

FWIW, James Buchanan served as Secretary of State from 1845 to 1849.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh dear.

Do you not know what a counterfactual is, Armchair?

[Bwaaah]

Of course not. A "simpleton" like Armchair couldn't possibly.

You're like the poster child for Sarcastr0.

[David Nieporent]

the groundbreaking precedent in such a first-time appointment.

Um, Pete Buttigieg was a gay cabinet secretary appointed in 2021. 2021 is 4 years before 2025.

[DDHarriman]

>Yes, if you have a childlike view of humanity, demographics dictates ideology.

wtf? Are you for real? What's the Left's dogmatic response to any minority that isn't a Democrat?

Uncle Tom's and other related epitaphs. Trading on characteristics and association to them has been the Left's bread and butter since the Cultural Revolution back in China... at least.

It's fucking called "Identity Politics" for a reason.

You've been loathsome for awhile, but now erasing Identity Politics for narrative control is just beyond the pale.

[Malika la Maize]

Noted white nationalist here complains about the Left’s identity politics!

[DDHarriman]

I wish you humanoids could read.

I complained about Sarcastr0 pretending the Left didn't do identity politics.

I wish you bugs never learned human English. Your understanding of it is so limited.

[Kazinski]

How easy do you think it is to sell that much farmland?

Its not like you just post it on EBay and take the best bid after a few days.

[Sarcastr0]

Randy Barnett really making a cottage industry of running academic cover for anti-birthright citizenship movement.

Pretty dispiriting where the VC of 10 years ago ended up.
Good job Prof. Kerr for dodging that bullet.

[DDHarriman]

Hey every author here:

Sarcastr0 is giving out Good Boy Points and Bad Boy Finger Wags.

This is very very important, he is, after all, a govie. And everyone, including Trump, the agencies, and every individual has to seek his permission AND approval.

Please study his comment and then if you got a Bad Boy Finger Wag, come up with a plan to regain Sarcastr0's approval and trust.

Our Sacred Democracy depends on it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Randy Barnett really making a cottage industry of running academic cover for anti-birthright citizenship movement."

An academic is taking a position on as issue? Holy shit!

[Malika la Maize]

The College Football Playoff bracket was revealed Sunday, and Nick Saban wasn’t happy to see Notre Dame be the first team out in favor of Group of 5 programs Tulane and James Madison, which earned guaranteed berths in the 12-team bracket as two of the top-five ranked conference winners.

The ESPN analyst and seven-time national championship coach with LSU and Alabama was asked for his thoughts after the final two at-large spots went to Alabama and Miami, leaving the Fighting Irish out of the Playoff.

“I think the fact of the matter is, all three of those teams should have gotten in and deserve the right to play in the College Football Playoff,” Saban said. “… You’re going to have two teams in the playoff — no disrespect to the Group of 5 — that are nowhere near ranked as highly as some other teams that are much better than them.”

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6870296/2025/12/07/nick-saban-notre-dame-cfp-bracket-reveal/

[Malika la Maize]

Related:

The Notre Dame Fighting Irish announced on Sunday the team will forgo playing in a bowl game after it was left out of the College Football Playoff field.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/notre-dame-opts-out-bowl-game-after-being-left-out-college-football-playoff.amp

[Josh R]

When only 4 teams made it, I was sympathetic to teams that were screwed. But now that we have 12, I am not for a team that is borderline 10th or 11th. It's similar to me not being sympathetic for the 40th best team being left out of March Madness. It's too far down to complain about the rules.

[jb]

I'm curious if there's been another situation where there were two non-major conference champions ranked higher than any of the power conference champions.

I'm too lazy, but thinking back maybe some combination of Boise State, TCU and Utah? In fairness, those programs were all a lot better than JMU. But also in fairness, the ACC is a lot worse than any of the power conferences used to be.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has Gaza been stabilized?

[OpinionsVary]

Hard to say. We've had phase 1 ceasefires before (Biden forced one a while back but it broke apart and wasn't extended). Hopefully this one can get into phase 2, which should be happening soon.

Signs are mixed.

There's some good signs. Fighting has generally been sporadic and some new elements are rolling forward, like opening the Rafah crossing.

On the bad side, the phase 2 stuff is quite a bit harder and hamas is playing up again - rejecting key parts of the peace proposal. If we're lucky, they're just sounded off to their base and/or can be forced into compliance by regional actors.

https://www.jns.org/hamas-chief-rejects-key-points-of-trump-peace-plan-calls-for-israels-destruction/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Thanks.
We can hope...

[ReaderY]

The original meaning of the word vested meant clothed or adorned, very close to the word vest. The word vestments still retains the relationship. ILike the word president, conoting a figure who merely presides and by no means has absolute control, the word vested means that the President is adorned amd ceremonially resposible for the Executive branch. “Vest” once meant a robe of the sort British mMonarchs wear at theie coronation. If came to mean a lesser article of clothing only later. British monarchs are to this day vested, with executive power exactly like American Presidents, they receive literal vestments of office at their coronation. Yet nobody would today claim this implies any absolute control.

An American President, to be sure, can never become a pure figurehead, because the Constitution gives the President several specific enumerative powers. But the Constituion very notably did not give the President any absolute power to appoint any of his nominal subordiantes. All Presidential appointments, every pne, require the consent of the Senate. This alone is a sign the Constitution nevee intended to give the President any absolute power over the executive branch. Nobody unable to select appointees without another’s consent can ever have complete control. And the constitution gives the President no enumerated power to fire anyone.

I am going to advance the position that the President’s wnumerated powers are the only ones he has, that he can do nothing else whatsoever without Congress’ permission. If he wants to fire someone, he needa to ask Congress to pass a law, nust as he does if he wants to create or rename an office or hire someone.

Indeed, it would be entirely anomalous to let the President fire someone at will, yet not be able to hire anyone without asking for permission. The Framers were extremely aware of the consequences of partisan divides, and they were wise enough not to countenance a situation where a President could simply get rid of executive officers yet, facing a Senate of different persuasion, be unable to fill them with ones he deems better.

The crisis we are in is entirely one of judicial making. We have fundamentally misconstrued what “vested” means, been beholden to Presidential grandiosity, and have given too much weight to certain passages of Hamilton when he was attempting to sell his own vision of what the President should be rather than fairly representing the compromise office the Constitutional Convention in fact created.

Even there, Hamilton’s careful walk through the President’s enumerated powers should belie the idea that he somehow has every other possible executive power just from the mere use of the word “vested.” The requirement to get the advice and consent of the Senate before appointing is no anomaly.

I want to point out a specific reason numerated power of the President, the power to ask for a written report on any subject from his officers. If the vesting clause really grants actual rather than purely ceremonial control, this clause becomes an inexplicable anomaly. Of course the President can do that! How could it not be obvious! But its presence is a sure sign of the real relationship between the President and his nominal subordinates that the Framers actually had in mind. Without that enumerated power, his “subordinates” wouldn’t even have any obligation to tell him what they are up to! That, I think, is the most powerful indication imaginable that the Framers never gave the President any power or authority to fire anyone. But for their textual onligation to tell the President what they are doing, absent a Congresssional grant of authority the President presides over them and is “vested” with them in a purely symbolic, figurehead sense, with no actual power over them whatsover. Once appointed, the only say he has in what they do is whatever say Congress gives him. He certainly can’t fire them unless Congress says he can.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you for filling in for Lathrop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — Cite any remark of mine even similar to that one.

I do not agree with ReaderY's comment above, but note that he made an unusual comment interesting by giving it substantive treatment.

In short, ReaderY created a comment better than anything Bumble ever posted. Of course I understand that ReaderY knows better than to pride himself to be described as better than Bumble.

[Bwaaah]

SL: "Cite any remark of mine even similar to that one."

Did you miss the word count?

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[Malika la Maize]

Several good points here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lots of word games.

[Malika la Maize]

Interpretation of texts kind of involves that kind of thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good points mixed with word games, really.

I think it would be fair to say that the authors of the Constitution didn't intend to give the President as much power as today's Presidents exercise. They didn't intend to give ANY part of the federal government as much power as all of them today exercise!

But this is on display in its most exaggerated form with the Presidency. While it's commonplace to say that the Constitution sets up three co-equal branches, that's not really true. It actually sets up a system of moderate legislative supremacy.

For instance, Congress can remove Executive or Judicial officers. Neither of those branches have any power to remove members of the Legislature. That's a design for legislative supremacy, if push comes to shove.

The problem is that over long years, Congress has ceded much of its power to the Executive branch, and to a lesser extent the Judicial branch. Too much trouble to exercise, with power comes responsibility and blame when things go wrong. And as the federal government has grown vast beyond any constitutional plan, there's just too much DETAIL for the legislature to cope with. A legislature probably can't remain supreme in practice once you create an administrative state.

But this isn't a fight between the Executive and the Legislature, really. It's a fight between the Executive and the bureaucracy, an unofficial forth branch of government. And in any fight between THOSE two, I have to take the side of the branch that's actually constitutionally legitimate, and elected.

If Presidents can't fire the bureaucracy, it has become the supreme branch of the federal government.

[Michael P]

The word vest means an armless piece of clothing for the torso This means that the president can cut off the arms of any executive-branch minion who doesn't fall in line.

Chex mix, moonbats.

[Bwaaah]

"Chex mix, moonbats."

I find this expression strangely elegant.

[ReaderY]

But in the 1790s, it didn’t mean that. The garment that used to be called a waistcoat only started being called a vest in the United States well into the 19th century.

[Bob from Ohio]

"original meaning of the word vested meant clothed or adorned"

original meaning of the word toilet meant a lady's dressing ritual

[Kazinski]

You obviously have not read Myers v US, where CJ Taft quotes extensively the debates in the first Congress over the exact question of whether the President can fire the executive officers.

Their conclusion was the President could hardly wield the executive power, which the constitution explicitly confers on him, without the power to fire executive officers.

Even Humphreys was a narrow decision which exempted legislative, or quasi-judicial agencies. But I don't see any enumerated power for Congress to create quasi-legislative agencies, in fact article 1 says all legislative power resides in Congress. Quasi-judicial agencies might indeed be permitted if they are Article 3 courts.

If Congress is concerned about conferring too much power to these agencies they could reduce their scope and power legislatively, or via the budget.

[ReaderY]

Grammar snob’s trivial pet peave #23479: failure to pay syn tax:

The Supreme Court has taken to using the term “vided” to describe cross-references. But the Latin word vide works similarly to the word cave, be aware. We don’t use the term “caved” in English, at least not with that meaning. We use the term “caveated.” Why not use the term “videated?” It would follow convention for anglicizing Layin terms of this type. A videat would be analogous to a caveat.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe "caved" isn't a good example because it was already in common use with an alternative meaning? "Vided" is still available in my limited vocabulary, and it's shorter than "videated."

Some virtue in trying to keep it short?

[Kazinski]

Sous vided is taken, even if its a horrible mismatch of French and English past tense.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Radical Center in Contemporary Legal Thought

Sometimes the only real response to this sort of thing is, "You do know that we can hear you, right?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you notice the "(Cambridge University Press, 2025)"?

[Bwaaah]

Though I am philosophically liberal, I am tactically centrist, and pretty much ever so. It's not a proud position of mine to be fundamentally reactionary in a way that has a notable effect of promoting the status quo. But it's easy to see the destructive implications of the fringes at either end of the political spectrum. And as a skeptic and a general ignoramus, Chesterton's fence is an applicable and instructive parable (that I only learned of recently).

The people who cobbled together these solutions were, if nothing else, much better informed than me. (Their wisdom regarding the limitations of humanity, however, is not nearly so clear.)

How did we get here? By trying to solve one problem at a time in a way that produces more beneficial effects that deleterious ones. But after 250 years of rule making through the particular interests of hundreds of thousands of people (at least), what can a mortal mind do but look at the sum and say, "What the fuck is all this?"

Beware the fundamentally confounding implications of complexity itself. In the process of our government optimizing solutions to our problems, we can't help but arrive at a morass that's anathema to our want, our need, for simple coherence.

[Sarcastr0]

Though I am philosophically liberal, I am tactically centrist

No one's buying it, dude.

[Bwaaah]

I'll give you credit if you can quote one thing I've ever said that contradicts that thesis.

[Malika la Maize]

A philosophically liberal person would not consistently criticize today’s American left more than the Trumpian right. Heck, a moderate conservative wouldn’t. You’re like a guy who insists he’s a Bears fan but in any discussion of the Packers you consistently pivot to how the Bears are the worst. It’s transparently phony. The only interesting thing is why you feel the need to put on such an easy to see through performance.

[Bwaaah]

The scourge of systemic racism, the need to shift toward the pursuit of equity, the march against the oppressors and the nobility of empowerment of the oppressed.

And anyway, we're on a path to environmental self-destruction.

I could go on...

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not digging through the archives, but you're lockstep MAGA. I think you said some mean things about Trump in August. Since then your posting has been 100% into supporting every jot and tiddle of Trump's illiberal movement.

Every murder, every lie they tell our courts, every corrupt scheme. You either defend it or don't say boo.

[grb]

That's hardly fair to Bwaaah. Sure, he's an abject bootlicker who willfully ignores every single Trump lie, excuses every act of Trump corruption, gushes toadying support for any Trump outrage, and professes fawning Cult awe after each (empty) Trump stunt.

But imagine how much pro-Trump bootlicking, excusing, gushing, toadying and Cult fawning he'd do if he wasn't actually a liberal!

[Bwaaah]

Oh, look. It's B.S., and Son-of-B.S.

[Malika la Maize]

You have to somewhat admire his commitment to the act though, right up there with Weis, Turkey, Greenwald. Phony baloney.

[Bwaaah]

One day, maybe, you'll do me?

Though I don't fit into your box, you and I have much more in common than you can comfortably admit. I suspect (but don't really know) that you chose those people because they are liberals who don't reinforce Democratic party messaging like you do and expect?

[Brett Bellmore]

"How did we get here? By trying to solve one problem at a time in a way that produces more beneficial effects that deleterious ones."

Without using the Constitution itself as a fixed pole, that approach ends up doing a drunkard's walk away from it, and people who DO compare the jurisprudence to the Constitution find an ever greater divergence.

[Sarcastr0]

Only through BrettLaw can society be redeemed.

[Armchair]

“Let’s go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force,” “There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists.”
-Joe Biden

“In FY 2010, 29 of the 63 top drug trafficking organizations identified by the Department of Justice had links to terrorist organizations,”
-Obama White House

[Michael P]

Since 2010, we are supposed to believe that many of these cartels have engaged in outright terror campaigns in support of their crimes, including effects justifying the admission of refugees from those campaigns to the US -- but also that we should only work through the foreign law enforcement services that the cartels have subverted.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes - that is how national sovereignty works.

The right's casual embrace nationalism for me but not for thee destabilizes the 70+ year system built on sovereignty.
Before that, it was empires, spheres of influence, and a ton of needless suffering and brushfire wars culminating in 2 World Wars.

America was a force for good in the world merely be enforcing the norm of respecting sovereignty. Trump's blundering mafioso bullying smallness and his ease of being manipulated by shiny things are shredding that stabilizing edifice thing in just a couple of years.

[Bob from Ohio]

"respecting sovereignty."

for our friends and enemies too big to seriously mess with

[Sarcastr0]

Wow what a badass hardcase you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"badass hardcase "

True but not relevant here. your comment was just ahistorical vibes.

How many Latin American. Middle Eastern and African countries have we intervened in during the last 80 years? Overtly or covertly?

I don't mind, we are a superpower and we should assert our interests boldly.

[hobie]

NPR: "The Anti-Defamation League and SPLC note that Turning Point USA members have been linked to extremist and white nationalist groups. [designated terrorist groups]."

[ThePublius]

That's laughable. The ADL and SPLC are so far left they are about to fall off the edge, and they have demonstrated a marked disdain and prejudice against anything not extreme left, including Catholicism. In short, they are lying pieces of shit.

Google "splc controversy."

""Hate Group" Designations: Critics argue the SPLC overbroadly labels groups, potentially inciting violence (like the 2012 Family Research Council shooting) and using these labels for fundraising, turning it into a "partisan progressive hit operation" rather than a neutral watchdog, say this Wikipedia page, Politico Magazine, this Politico article, and this Heritage Foundation article."

[hobie]

Them poor Jews at the ADL. They were fine until they touched the third rail: White Supremacist Christian Nationalism. Now they're just another marxist dem hoax under the bus with America-hating Leonard Leo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now explain how Jewish judges rule against them in litigation. (I presume that some Federal judges are Jewish...)

And hobie, believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior is a theological difference, not antisemitism. No more than thinking Lobster inappropriate to eat is antichristianism.

[not guilty]

"Them poor Jews at the ADL. They were fine until they touched the third rail: White Supremacist Christian Nationalism. Now they're just another marxist dem hoax under the bus with America-hating Leonard Leo."

A significant number of White Supremacist "Christian" Nationalists, who are avid supporters of Israel, are nevertheless anti-semitic. This is the future that those "Christians" hope to bring about, as described in Zechariah 14: 1-21 (RSV):

1 Behold, a day of the LORD is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you.
2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.
4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward.
5 And the valley of my mountains shall be stopped up, for the valley of the mountains shall touch the side of it; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzzi'ah king of Judah. Then the LORD your God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
6 On that day there shall be neither cold nor frost.
7 And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light.
8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter.
9 And the LORD will become king over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be one and his name one.
10 The whole land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem shall remain aloft upon its site from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Han'anel to the king's wine presses.
11 And it shall be inhabited, for there shall be no more curse; Jerusalem shall dwell in security.
12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will smite all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths.
13 And on that day a great panic from the LORD shall fall on them, so that each will lay hold on the hand of his fellow, and the hand of the one will be raised against the hand of the other;
14 even Judah will fight against Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the nations round about shall be collected, gold, silver, and garments in great abundance.
15 And a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, the mules, the camels, the asses, and whatever beasts may be in those camps.
16 Then every one that survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of booths.
17 And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain upon them.
18 And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, then upon them shall come the plague with which the LORD afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the feast of booths.
19 This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the feast of booths.
20 And on that day there shall be inscribed on the bells of the horses, "Holy to the LORD." And the pots in the house of the LORD shall be as the bowls before the altar;
21 and every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be sacred to the LORD of hosts, so that all who sacrifice may come and take of them and boil the flesh of the sacrifice in them. And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day.

Many Christianist supporters of Israel believe that the LORD in that chapter refers to Jesus the Christ. Not a happy future for Jews there.

[Kazinski]

The ADL is actually tacking somewhat back somewhat after realizing that they were enabling Jew haters and smearing Christians.

The Guardian reports:

Anti-Defamation League takes down extremism research after Musk leads rightwing backlash

Prominent US Jewish advocacy and anti-hate organization removed over a thousand pages of research

“With over 1,000 entries written over many years, the ADL Glossary of Extremism has served as a source of high-level information on a wide range of topics for years. At the same time, an increasing number of entries in the Glossary were outdated,” the ADL said in a statement. “We also saw a number of entries intentionally misrepresented and misused. Moreover, our experts have continued to develop more comprehensive resources and innovative ways to provide information about antisemitism, extremism and hate.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/01/anti-defamation-league-removes-extremism-research

[Sarcastr0]

This makes them sound like shitty cowards not fake Jew TPUSA haters.

[hobie]

Fuh real. They folded like a cheap suit. To be fair, when you have the FBI and the entire federal government threaten you for a little dossier on Turning Point, its hard to blame them for giving in to forced censorship.

[jay.tee]

NPR: "The Anti-Defamation League and SPLC note that Turning Point USA members have been linked to extremist and white nationalist groups. [designated terrorist groups]."

Someone with an IQ in the 99th percentile wouldn’t be so gullible to swallow whole anything the ADL or SPLC asserts. Or NPR, for that matter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I doubt that someone in the 99th percentile would be literate, but your point is quite valid.

[Sarcastr0]

IQ in the 99th percentile
The trend continues.

[hobie]

Heh. I was gonna let the unintended compliment slide.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many defamation suits has the ADL either lost or settled at this point?

Trusting them here is like trusting David Duke as a Torah scholar...

[Magister]

According to Wikipedia, the ADL lost one defamation lawsuit and settled another. Does losing a defamation lawsuit mean one is untrustworthy?

[hobie]

The two biggest promoters of terrorism worldwide in our lifetimes (Saudi Arabia for Sunni terrorist orgs; and Qatar for Shia terrorists) are now getting nuclear technology transferred to them as the quid for the Crypto-quo.

Just sayin'.

[loki13]

hobie,

I hate to correct you ... but you're completely wrong on part of this, and ... a little wrong (but in a nuanced way) on the other.

Let's start with some basic facts.

Qatar, like most of the Arabian peninsula, is majority Sunni. The Qatari royal family (the Al-Thanis) are Sunni. The Qataris are NOT a supporter of Shia terrorist groups; they aren't even a supporter of terrorist groups.

Qatar is considered a neutral mediator in the Gulf- albeit a more muscular force than, say, Oman (which is more of a "Switzerland" of the Middle East). For that reason, they often allow or host the delegations of groups that we consider terrorists, but with general permission (the same reason we have an airbase there). They also facilitate and broker deals- such as when Netanyahu wanted Hamas to be funded... yeah, people try to stuff that one down the memory hole, don't they?

But let's break this down in two ways- first, the epicenter of Shia terrorist and radicalism is Iran, and following that Iraq. But it's more complicated than that (it always is). Bahrain is ruled by Sunnis, but has a slight majority Shia population. Yemen has a sizable Shia population that is the minority, but you might have heard of them ... the Houthis. That's why they are supported by Iran. Conversely, that's also why the Yemen civil war is a proxy war with the other side supported by Saudi and the UAE.

Lebanon? Shia is a sizeable minority, but you've probably heard of them as well. Hezbollah. Are you seeing how most of these start to make sense? Obviously, there are some strange strategic partnerships (Hamas is Sunni).

But it gets stranger. Sunnis are, by far, the most dominant. But calling all Sunnis the same would be like saying that all Christians are the same- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran.

Just on the Arabian peninsula, you can have a Wahhabi (Sunni) from Qatar and a Wahhabi (Sunni) from Saudi. While they are both Wahhabi (think strict interpretation, like ... Pentecostal?) their approaches are very different. Or you can look at Oman, which is Ibadism (Sunni) which is moderate. Or the UAE, which differs by Emirate, but is predominantly Maliki (Sunni).

The vast majority of the problems that many Americans have isn't just that we don't know what the actual issues, divides, and complexities are; it's that we don't even know what we do not know.

[hobie]

Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

I suppose Qatar (and probably Saudi Arabia) have changed their window dressings recently for political means. But they both have played both sides. Qatar has historically been the more pragmatic face of Iran. And they have been a little more than friendly when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban.

Regardless, I don't care how reformed these two appear to have become, giving either of them nuclear technology will be one of the gravest mistakes in human history.

[loki13]

Hobie,

Did you actually read what I wrote, or read the article you linked to? Did you understand it? Did you exercise caution given the last sentence I wrote?

Let's start with the basics in the article. First, "harboring financiers." As I wrote before, they are considered a neutral ground for mediation. So yes, obviously they have allowed delegations for various groups to be there- because there are times when other people (like Israel, or the US) need to talk to these groups. That's hardly surprising. Again, they also host the major US airbase for the region.

Next, did you look at the groups? Did you notice how I made a whole essay about the difference between Sunni and Shia, and you wrote that Qatar was allied with SHIA?

Do you want to try again, or are you really set on defending a bad position? Do you seriously not understand the difference between the two?

[hobie]

You are correct and I was wrong. Qatar is predominantly Sunni

[loki13]

...thank you. On the internet, you cherish these moments. You are a gentleman.

[loki13]

"Regardless, I don't care how reformed these two appear to have become, giving either of them nuclear technology will be one of the gravest mistakes in human history."

Also? This is why I hate Americans trying to talk about developments in the Middle East, because they literally have no idea what is going on.

Oh, Saudi Arabia might be doing something???? OH NOES!

That would be a YUGE DEAL, if it wasn't for the fact that Saudi Arabia might enter into a mutual defense pact with a nuclear power like Pakistan, which would treats an act of aggression on one as an act of aggression on another, and put Saudi Arabia under a pretty strong shield.

Wait .... you're saying that this already happened? Three months ago? And while we know the deterrent effect, other aspects (including transfer of technology) aren't known, other than the massive transfer of money to Pakistan?

Yeah. It did. Great of you to keep up with the concern.

I agree that Trump selling us out is bad, but you have to pay attention to what is going on to actually know the issues.

[Bwaaah]

That's helpful perspective you provided, Loki. Moves past "the Arabs." (Or "the Muslims.")

[loki13]

You're welcome. As you can see, I can get frustrated when people discuss other areas like they are a monolith.

It would be like someone saying that a Baptist MAGA supporter in Birmingham is exactly the same as an atheist Mamdani supporter living in the Upper West Side, because they're both Americans.

Or a Protestant in East Belfast is just like a Catholic in Derry, since they're both Irish. Distinctions ... they can matter a lot, even if we tend to elide them.

[Bwaaah]

Generally speaking, with spotty exceptions, the imprecision of my understandings of people is somewhat proportional to their physical distance from me. That imprecision, that rate of decay, accelerates anywhere beyond what I can see with my own eyes.

What comes through on my screen only slightly mitigates that decay, especially due to the selection bias in what comes through that way.

The internet makes it feel like that physical distance went away. It didn't. My theory still works. I still accurately grasp not much.

[Kazinski]

I agree for the most but really what we need to concentrate on is their actions not Sunni or Shia.

Indonesia is the largest Muslim Country in the world but is not known for sponsoring foreign terrorism, while Yemen is a fraction of that size and because the Houthi's reside their, although definitely not sponsored by the Yemani government are very troublesome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a ballooning fraud scandal in Minnesota -- https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5635849-walz-political-future-fraud-scandal/

Tampon Tim is in this up to his neck. Estimates now exceed $2 Billion (with a "B") with much of this money going to Somali warlords.

Dr. Oz is threatening to shut off Federal funding in 60 days if there aren't indictments.

[hobie]

At worst, just fine them like MAGA Rick Scott was. Then let them go [like MAGA Rick Scott was].

Politico 2018: "TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott is used to being attacked for the historic $1.7 billion Medicare fraud fine slapped on his former hospital company. But in a new twist, he’s trying to turn his weakness into a strength by accusing his opponent of “stealing money from Medicare.”

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/08/30/democrats-medicare-fraud-is-fungus-scott-will-never-get-rid-of-573155

[Dr. Ed 2]

In Maine, they are threatening to kill reporters...
https://robinsonreport.substack.com/p/top-somali-democrats-clan-now-threatening

[jb]

By "Maine", Dr. Ed 2 means "Somalia".

Do you guys just think no one is actually going to click on your links?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Silly me, I thought that the City of Lewiston was on the Androscoggin River and not in Africa...

You do know that one can speak French -- or Somali -- in Maine. People do. They sometimes even type it...

[jb]

From your article:

Clan members of a Somali-American refugee with deep ties to the Maine Democratic Party have begun threatening a Somalia-based media outlet for sharing investigative reporting originally published by The Maine Wire and The Robinson Report.

(my emphasis...to help with your reading comprehension)

[not guilty]

I remember the Columbia/HCA scandal with Rick Scott at the helm. The largest health care fraud case in American history. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm

The HCA Board of Directors in the wake of the scandal dropped Columbia from the name, ran Scott out of town on a rail, and summoned Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. (one of the company founders) out of retirement to right the ship.

[jb]

We all knew this already, but Dr. Oz is an idiot. From your own article:

"The controversy, which focuses on hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly stolen from a federally funded nutrition program, has led to more than 50 convictions."

[Dr. Ed 2]

About a hundred whistleblowers have come forward mentioning the involvement of Governor Tampon. And a certain State AG who was born in Somalia. And Illian Omar.

You know, important people and not just patsys.

[David Nieporent]

much of this money going to Somali warlords.

Completely made up.

Dr. Oz is threatening to shut off Federal funding in 60 days if there aren't indictments.

If the fraud is in federally-funded programs, it's up to the feds to indict, so that would be a weird threat to make. If the fraud is in state programs, how is it any business of Dr. Oz?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is evidence that Ilian Omar's campaign received stolen Federal funds -- can she criminally charged? Or is she exempt because of her rep status?

[hobie]

And?

[Riva]

They probably don’t know where to start first, her profiting from what appears to be the worst welfare fraud in US history or her immigration fraud and fake marriage to her brother.

[Moderation4ever]

You might start by wondering why a single Congress person, and assuming the person is not even in your own district, occupies so much of you time.

[Riva]

How much of her time was spent wondering about the apparently greatest welfare fraud in US history occurring in her district?

And having a congressional representative who owes her presence in this country to immigration fraud is a national disgrace that should concern anyone interested in a secure border and the rule of law, things admittedly of no concern to democrats, outside of exploiting illegalities for political gain.

[Dr. Ed 2]

While it is now into the billions, I doubt this will turn out as the greatest welfare fraud.

Minnesota is a relatively small state -- the same thing is happening in Massachusetts with people having multiple EBT cards (routinely they have a second one with their last and first names reversed) and there's other stuff not quite public yet.

New York and California are much bigger states so even a smaller percentage of fraud in those states would be a vastly greater sum.

I think this is going to become the Dem's Watergate -- they are every bit as arrogant and corrupt as the Republicans were in 1973, they control the media to the same extent, and the other party controls Congress (and hence hearing agendas).

Could be fun...

[David Nieporent]

And having a congressional representative who owes her presence in this country to immigration fraud

Even if the racist lies about Omar marrying her brother were true, they would have absolutely zero to do with her presence in this country. She came to the U.S. at age 13, an age at which it would've been tough for her to even have the mens rea to commit immigration fraud. She married the guy who isn't her brother but who some lunatics claim is her brother when she was 27.

[CountmontyC]

Well to start fraud involving hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer money should be something every American taxpayer should be co cerned about. Secondly she is a member of the federal legislature who has a vote on federal policies that affect every American citizen.
That alo e should be enough to occupy a significant portion of a person's time.

[Moderation4ever]

Fraud should be of concern but there is no trail to Ilhan Omar other than she is from Somalia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha!
Nothing like will ignorance.

[Moderation4ever]

If you have anything other than innuendo put it out there. Let have a citation.

[Mr. Bumble]

That should have bee "willful".
Try this and follow the embedded links.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/12/what-alarms.php

(I'm pretty sure you won't"

[Mr. Bumble]

been

[Riva]

And here's some more video for your enjoyment. “Ilhan Omar has close ties to the owners of Safari Restaurant — the hub of the Feeding Our Future fraud — and some were later convicted on 21 felony counts. She filmed a video inside the restaurant while the fraud was happening, and one of her most enthusiastic campaign volunteers was also indicted and convicted.” — Bill Glahn
https://x.com/billglahn/status/1997118797312921633

[Moderation4ever]

Again there is no proof only innuendo based on proximity to people suspected of fraud. This is the same situation as Trump proximity to Jeffery Epstein.

[hobie]

Now its the Seditious Eight!

[2024 in a brief to the Supreme Court filed by Pam Bondi for Trump in Trump v. US. So in essence it could be said that Trump endorses this as well]:

"Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders...The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets. Indeed, service members are required not to do so.”

And in oral arguments, Alito also says: "...they [Seal Team 6 members] are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders."

It's a shame Bondi and Alito have to be put to death now. But the bright side for the hayseeds is the opening on SCOTUS will allow MAGA-on-steroids James Ho to get seated.

[Michael Ejercito]

You realize there is a difference between oral arguments and a video expressly directed at the troops, right?

[Riva]

Apparently the difference between the commander in chief and his authorized executive officers commenting on the military chain of command and color revolution messaging sowing seeds of doubt to encourage mass insubordination is beyond the understanding of the average troll.

[David Nieporent]

In 2024, who was the commander in chief?

[Riva]

Actually, I'm not sure anyone knew who was Commander in Chief in 2024.

But yes, in hastily responding to the comment I did misread the context. So, in light of that, in keeping with the response above from Michael, a brief written for the Supreme Court and a comment from a Justice to counsel during oral arguments is something entirely different from color revolution messaging sowing seeds of doubt to encourage mass insubordination.

Do you somehow think the insane rant of hobie merits any further comment?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[ThePublius]

Did you ever wonder why the beef in even inexpensive Asian food is so tender? They do this routinely.

The Secret Ingredient for Better-Browned Ground Beef

This really works. I've used in with ground beef, stew cuts, short ribs, and even veal cutlets.

Use it wet or dry.

(per google:)
"How to Use Baking Soda on Veal Cutlets:
Prepare the Veal: Slice your veal cutlets thinly, against the grain, for stir-fries or quick skillet meals.
Apply Baking Soda:
Dry Method: Sprinkle about ½ teaspoon of baking soda per pound of meat evenly over the cutlets and gently rub it in.
Wet Method (Velveting): Dissolve 1 teaspoon baking soda in ½ cup of water for about 12 oz of meat, soak for 15 mins, then drain.
Rest: Let the meat sit for 15 to 30 minutes at room temperature (or refrigerate for longer periods).
Rinse & Dry: Rinse the cutlets thoroughly under cold water to remove all baking soda, then pat them completely dry with paper towels to ensure proper browning and no soapy taste.
Cook: Season and cook as you normally would; the veal will be exceptionally tender."

Tonight I'm making veal saltimbocca. Cheese or no cheese - I haven't decided. I have fresh, large sage leaves, and thin slices of prosciutto. I'll serve it on fresh pasta. Maybe I'll go out and get some asparagus, which seems to be the traditional green with this dish.

[Ska]

No cheese - it would add too much more salt to an already salty dish and overpower the veal. The prosciutto is already doing the work of the cheese without completely taking over the flavor profiles. I want to taste the veal!

Also, pasta is kind of a lot to serve with it. Stick with roasted potatoes and sauteed broccoli rabe, something like that.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I kind of agree on the cheese. I had it at a restaurant last week and they had cheese on it, and many online recipes call for it. But I think I'll forgo the cheese.

On the pasta, I really like pasta! And, most times I've had this dish out, it was served with pasta. How about mashed potatoes instead?

I like the ideal of the broccoli rabe. But my preferred green is asparagus.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've always rolled roasts in baking soda (and then washed it off) if they've been in the refrigerator for a few days. Learned that trick from a butcher who would throw pounds of it at sides of beef and then hose them down if they were old.

[loki13]

Recent developments!

1. In terms of "least surprising news ever," would you be shocked to learn that IN ADDITION to all the other GOP members that have "done mortgage fraud" in ways much more serious than what the Department of Trump Vengeance has accused a few Democrats of doing ... so has Trump? Of course not.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-mortgage-fraud-florida-principal-residences

2. Dan Richman secured a TRO so that the DoTV cannot use any of the materials they seized from him. What were those materials? Literally everything they used for the Comey indictment. It's just a TRO, but I don't see this going well for the DoTV.

Again, this is applying actual law. I offer no opinions about what edicts may issue forth regarding SCOTUSlaw in the future.

[Armchair]

Fake news.

[jb]

I don't understand the administration's theory for reindicting Comey before winning an appeal of Halligan's ineligibility. Isn't any new indictment just going to get immediately tossed on statue of limitations grounds?

[loki13]

They think that they can argue that because the last indictment was dismissed without prejudice, they have a window to re-indict under the statute (tolling).

They're wrong because the original indictment was void, but that's their thought.

[jb]

I thought the principle of tolling was that there was some reason that you (the government in this case) was unable to file their claim that is not your own fault, not that you messed up the paperwork the day before the deadline and want to get a re-do after it has passed.

At best, it seems like the government should get 5 more days (the amount of time left before the end of the statue of limitations at the time they filed the original indictment) to re-file after the dismissal, not additional weeks or months.

[loki13]

The only thing I will say is that in fairness to the other side of the argument, the statutory language is predicated on a dismissal without prejudice, without other verbiage (IIRC). Because it contemplates almost every situation other than the one we have here- an invalid indictment sought right before the SOL runs out.

[jb]

What's the relevant statutory language? How much extra time do they get to bring a new indictment?

[loki13]

Too lazy to look it up, someone else will. But it's six months.

[David Nieporent]

The language is:

"Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information,"

The argument in favor of Trump is that this was dismissed "for any reason." The argument against Trump is that this indictment was void ab initio and therefore the statute doesn't apply.

[hobie]

[re regulatory approval of the Netflix purchase of Warner Bros.]

"At the Kennedy Center Honors on Sunday, President Trump praised Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-chief executive, but noted that the company had a “very big market share,” adding that he would be “involved” in the regulatory review."

Well, we got our first potential quid of the week and Monday isn't even over yet.

To compliment the Qatari jet, I think Netflix should donate a big-ass yacht to the US Air Force

[Mr. Bumble]

With majors studios owned by streaming services will there ever be decent, watchable movies made again?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe it's not a done deal for Netflix.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/8/paramount-goes-hostile-bid-warner-bros-challenging-netflix-72b-bid/

[Dr. Ed 2]

With today's technology, you don't need to be a major studio to either make or distribute a movie.

What you need are (a) ideas, (b) writing and (c) the ability to avoid making it a political diatribe.

Didn't Lucas make the first version of Star Wars as a college student? Now with today's technology....

[David Nieporent]

Didn't Lucas make the first version of Star Wars as a college student?

It will shock exactly nobody to recognize that this isn't even remotely true. He directed Star Wars at age 33, 10 years after graduating from college.

[loki13]

Just give him the first inaugural Netflix Peace Price, and announce that Netflix will spend $10 trillion dollars in unspecified investments in the future.

[Mr. Bumble]

So a sweetheart deal for Trump like the one they gave the Obamas?

[hobie]

Giving the Peace Prize to Obama just for being a black president was bullshit. Just as giving a Peace Prize to a white supremacist rapist would be bullshit

[Mr. Bumble]

I was referring to the Netflix deal the Obamas got.

[loki13]

In fairness to Obama, he didn't want it, asked if he had to accept it, and he addressed the issue head-on at the beginning of the speech.

No, he shouldn't have been awarded it, but it's not his fault they made a bad choice. It's not like he threw a tantrum for months on end demanding it.

(Also, it wasn't because he was a black President. It was because he wasn't GWB. Which also isn't a good reason to give it to him. Almost every single Peace Prize given to a political leader has ended up being a bad decision.)

[hobie]

I wonder who the nominees will be for the first Trump Institute for Peace annual Donald J. Trump World Peace Prize?

[grb]

I can just imagine the Vegas line on that!

[hobie]

HaHa! Especially since there will only be one nominee.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On President Donald Trump’s first full day in office this year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted of creating the largest online black market for illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time.

In the months since, he has granted clemency to others, including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country as a vast “narco-state” that helped to move at least 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.

https://archive.ph/cRShd

The anti-drug president?

[OpinionsVary]

Theory - Trump is actually three children in a trenchcoat. One of which is a libertarian stoner and the other a authoritarian kill'em'all warhawk. I believe the third may have been the raccoon who recently got drunk in an alcohol store.

[grb]

There's no call to insult the raccoon!
(People love that raccoon)

[Sarcastr0]

^
That Racoon is a national hero, bringing us relatable mirth in a moment of national division.

[Armchair]

Hey, at least we're not finding mysterious baggies of cocaine in the White House anymore. Amiright?

[Moderation4ever]

We don't really know. This White House, like many, is not transparent about things that happen inside.

[loki13]

"The anti-drug president?"

HA HA HA HA NO.

Anyone with half a brain (which, unfortunately, excludes a fair number of people who comment here) knows that the campaign in the Caribbean has never been about drugs. It's been about blowing up brown people to satiate blood lust as a cover for moving assets off the coast of Venezuela. How do we know this? Because we're not stupid. But also because it's all been lies.

1. They said it was about defending America. LIE.
-The leaked OLC memo said the justification was the "collective self defense" of Columbia (HA!) and Mexico. The reason we're going after drugs is because they are the equivalent of money, and the money is used to support armed attacks against Columbia and Mexico. NOT the US.

2. They said the drugs were going to America- literally, the boats were going to America (they said it after the first attack and repeatedly since then). LIE.
-Nope, anyone who knew anything knew that was a lie. And Bradley apparently acknowledged that they believed that the murders were committed on a boat going to Suriname to transit to a bigger boat. That means it was going to Europe.

3. They said it was about Fentanyl to prevent OD deaths. LIE.
-There are all cocaine shipments, when it's not fish.

4. They said it was to deter drug smuggling. LIE.
-The drug smuggling isn't deterred, and the drugs are going from Mexico through overland routes to America. Does killing fisherman and an occasional drug runner deter anything? Do you honestly think it does? Because if you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. That's not to say that going scorched earth on Northern Mexico wouldn't change the calculus (or blowing up Chinese vessels loaded with precursor chemicals) ... but we're not doing that.

5. Finally, why would we need an aircraft carrier strike group, special ops and their ship, F-35s, reconditioned naval and airbases in Puerto Rico, amphibious assault ships, destroyers, submarines (probably, not confirmed), and ... I dunno, B-52s for some fishing / drug boats? Not to mention thousands of marines? Because we want to blow up the brown people real good like?

Sure. It's about drugs. And Trump hates it when people focus attention on him and give him prizes and crowns and 747s and stuff.

[Joe_dallas]

A comment from another thread - I am not endorsing the analysis, just noting the comment.

"A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected."

[David Nieporent]

First, I'm not sure where the claim comes from that these boats were unflagged.

Second, it's true that the rules are different for flagged and unflagged vessels. But the rule for unflagged vessels is not "You can murder the people on board for fun," let alone that you can gratuitously murder the survivors after you sink the boats; the rule is that you don't need the permission of the country of registration to stop and board them.

[not guilty]

The high seas are within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, per 18 U.S.C. § 7(1). Murder therein is criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b), which declares:

(b)Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree [as denied in § 1111(a)] shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

This statute makes no distinction between ships flying flags and ships not flying flags. Neither does Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 918:

Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when such person—
(1)has a premeditated design to kill;
(2)intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3)is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4)is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, rape, rape of a child, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, aggravated sexual contact, sexual abuse of a child, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), such person shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct, unless such person is otherwise sentenced in accordance with a plea agreement entered into between the parties under section 853a of this title (article 53a).

Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth each deserve impeachment and criminal prosecution. In that no question concerning a party previously convicted in an impeachment trial was before SCOTUS in the execrable decision if Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), the Court did not handwave away the plain language of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution, which expressly provides that "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

I am tempted to say that I don't think even Chief Justice Whoreberts has that kind of brass, but then I recalled his decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which made hash of the Fifteenth Amendment, § 3, which explicitly grants Congress the “power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

[grb]

loki13 : "The anti-drug president?" HA HA HA HA NO.

It's generous of you not to note the "the anti-drug president" just pardoned a high-end member of one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.

He pardoned the man who pledged to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses.” Evidence at the trial of Juan Orlando Hernández showed the former president made Honduras into a bastion of the global drug trade. He orchestrated a vast trafficking conspiracy that raked in millions for cartels while Honduras remained one of Central America’s most poor, violent and corrupt countries.

"The anti-drug president" let this major narcotrafficker free after one year of a 45yr sentence. Because the "anti-drug president" doesn't give the slightest damn about drugs. Blowing-up boaters in the Caribbean is just another stunt to entertain his easily bored base (look, some people with brown skin blown-up!!!)

Even someone as - well - dense as Joe_dallas has to see how meaningless these cartoon theatrics are. But Trump's supporters don't require any efficiency, larger meaning, or honest purpose in their WWE-style entertainment. They just want to slap their knee and yowl with pleasure at the latest spectacle put on for their viewing pleasure.

Questions of true or false are completely irrelevant.

[loki13]

"Questions of true or false are completely irrelevant."

Honestly, that's the most depressing part of what we are living through- the stupidest timeline.

I can recall when the government would spin. They would avoid answering question. They would obfuscate. But ... and I know this sounds weird ... they truly did their best to avoid outright lying. Heck, the job of press secretary was considered a hard one because you had to toe that line.

Now? Their is literally no compunction about outright falsehoods. No shame, no consequences, and no impediment to spewing lies that are transparently false when they are uttered. It still shocks me. It shouldn't, given that it's been so normalized, but it does.

Which I guess is the point. It makes all of us cynical and distrustful of all information. And since we can't agree on basic facts, we can just argue our feelz.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

HA HA HA HA NO.

I'm too busy listening to the ridiculous SCOTUS oral argument to spell out my sarcasm. So thanks.

[loki13]

I was just doubling down on your sarcasm.

Honestly, I was planning on listening to the SCOTUS argument but I knew I would find it far too stupid and depressing and didn't want to start my week that way. I saw a lovely holiday parade this weekend and was hoping to let the good vibes continue.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy belated St. Nicholas Day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was no real "Decision of 1789," to allude to the ongoing executive removal oral argument. As if there was some final agreement ala the Jerusalem Council in Acts.

The First Congress disagreed on executive removal power. There were like four theories. Hamilton noted he changed his mind on the role of the Senate when someone cited one of his Federalist essays. Legislation carefully left open certain questions.

The sensible move, which the Constitution allows (if not commands), is to allow representatives of the people, Congress, to determine the rules when establishing offices.

The president then has the duty to faithfully execute such laws.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

SCOTUS order list easter egg ...

The Supreme Court just set aside a 2nd Circuit decision upholding New York's requirement that all school students, public and private, obtain certain vaccinations, without any religious exemptions. It orders the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the ruling in light of SCOTUS' LGBTQ school books decision.

The "LGBTQ" framing is itself somewhat misleading. The overall argument, though some around here focused on this, wasn't merely references to lesbians, gays, and trans people.

A parent, e.g., against divorce or mothers working outside of the home, or any number of things, could raise religious liberty opt-out arguments, too.

[John F. Carr]

Here is the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-133.html

Amish schools don't want a vaccine requirement. They are to be fined $2,000 per student per day if they don't comply. The instant case is about the first $118,000 in fines. They will be bankrupt a hundred times over if the law is upheld as applied to them.

Section heading of the petition:

The Court Should Resolve Acknowledged Confusion on the Scope and Meaning of Smith, Tandon, and Fulton.

The New York law has a rational basis in public health. It also fails to grant religion a most favored nation status. So which precedent wins? I don't see the relevance of Mahmoud v. Taylor. If the state can force adults to get vaccines, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, it can force those adults to vaccinate their children.

While petitioners cite inappropriate comments by lawmakers, I don't think that there will be admissible evidence of ill will as there was in the Colorado bakery cases. A lawmaker saying none of the major religions objects to vaccines is not going to be enough. (Except for Thomas?)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is Jacobson still good law in light of the Warren Court?

Remember that in -- what -- 1913 you could not only beat a confession out of a perp, but a police officer could be fired for refusing to do so. Today, not so much... Etc.

[John F. Carr]

As long as Jacobson has not been overruled lower courts must follow it or distinguish it. I could distinguish religious liberty claims from generalized bodily autonomy claims. The few cases I have heard of do not make this distinction for constitutional claims. Many cases make it for statutory claims. Employers have to try to accomodate religious objections to vaccines when they don't have to accomodate non-religious objections.

[John F. Carr]

I could rephrase your question as "will the current Supreme Court recognize a constitutional right to refuse vaccination on religious grounds?"

Definitely maybe. Precedent neither compels nor precludes religious opt-out. In this case, the court could limit the right of refusal to private schools, keeping the law in effect for public schools. If I recall correctly, New York passed the law in response to disease outbreaks in Orthodox Jewish communities where children did not attend public school. So such a decision would undermine the purpose of the law rather than ordering a compromise.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't see the relevance of Mahmoud v. Taylor.

The cert petition does.

But I'm not going to try to parse what is likely to happen here.

[hobie]

Ah Sincerely Held Beliefs. Is there any law it doesn't allow you to break?

[loki13]

Sure. You can't do anything about the BS unitary executive nonsense.

Scratch that. "The unitary executive is a sincerely-held religious belief of 5-6 members of the Supreme Court, which allows them to invalidate anything that gets in the way of what Trump wants."

[John F. Carr]

Another health case decided today, Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, case 25-180. This time a summary reversal. Doe claimed discrimination in medical care because he was HIV posititve. Louisiana courts ruled that the state-declared COVID emergency barred his claims. Medical providers have broad immunity during a health emergency. The Supreme Court said the state can't overrule federal law like that and remanded to allow petitioner to lose under federal law instead of state law.

[M L]

Paramount hostile bid for Warner Bros is interesting.

Re the deal with Netflix, Paramount said: "the sales process has been tainted by management conflicts, including certain members of management’s potential personal interests in post-transaction roles and compensation as a result of the economic incentives embedded in recent amendments to employment arrangements."

[DDHarriman]

Listening to SCOTUS oral arguments today... I'm smarter than KJB by a mile. She's legit a first class retard. We saw ng get a law license which has now been stripped from him. Why did the bar loosen it's standards so much to allow retards get licensed?

I could easily outshine her on the bench. And definitely in her writings. Anyone can write like an angsty redditor. Just punch yourself in the balls a few times, shove a huge black dildo up your ass, hail Satan then sound as stupid as humanly possible.

Easy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummmm.... Unless you have actual (factual) knowledge of (a) some such action being taken with regard to NG's law license and (b) that being the reason why (even if the BBO didn't state it), then you really ought not say such things about people.

And as to KBJ, her lack of logical analysis and flagrant racism can and should be discussed independent of dildos. She's enough of an embarrassment without going into the gutter.

[DDHarriman]

He said yesterday or the other day his law license was revoked because he's been declared 'disabled'.

I assumed given his comment history and demonstrated reasoning abilities that the disability was mental retardation.

[Mr. Bumble]

How to win friends and influence people.

[DDHarriman]

That's a very fortuitous comment because I was just thinking about that this morning.

Of all the thousands and thousands of arguments/debates that have occurred on this platform in these open threads going all the way back to washingtonpost.com times and even back to volokh.com times -- when I originally started commenting here, how many times do you think any of the 'regulars' ever changed their minds?

I have seen it. It's rare, but I have seen it happen. Much less so these past few Trump years. But, really, they were just as deranged with Bush.

[not guilty]

"He said yesterday or the other day his law license was revoked because he's been declared 'disabled'."

That, DDHarriman, is an unvarnished lie. I see that another incendiary comment from you, along with my reply thereto, has been deleted -- I surmise that was by moderators who realize that you have crossed the line into libel.

While I was suffering from clinical depression (which has since been controlled), I voluntarily sought disability inactive status. I chose to retire rather than later seek reinstatement.

[not guilty]

DDHarriman, you are a liar and the truth ain't in you. My law license was not "stripped form [me.]" At that time I was having problems with clinical depression (which is now under control), and I voluntarily sought disability inactive status. I decided to retire rather than to seek reinstatement to active status.

As for your suggestion of "mental retardation," my IQ has been tested and measured in the 99th percentile. (I was seven years old at the time, and I had been reading since age three.)

With you obviously limited perspicacity, you are hardly one to accuse anyone else of limited reasoning ability.

[Bwaaah]

My wife and I ran into some people on the street who had been friendly acquaintances years ago. A couple of minutes into our conversation, one of them launched into a brief angry summary of recent domestic history (~50 years).

I note how fluidly we paste together the facts of history into a sensible story that usually segues neatly into what we think should be done next. But having lived through those 50 years that that person described, I note that as time unfolded, the stories weren't told that way. The outcomes rarely matched the predictions at the time, and even as the realities unfolded, the stories of history were adjusted then, and re-adjusted perpetually thereafter, to account for new information and changing perspectives. History isn't what happened, but an ever-changing telling of what happened.

In retrospect, we suck at grasping what the effects of our societal scale actions will be. And yet so many of us are satisfied with our tidied tellings of the past. We ignore that we still suck at prediction. We continue to confidently shout for the next "obviously sensible thing."

Given our track record of typically being wrong in our forward-looking views, all the immodest voices look pretty stupid to me. The mere fact that the telling of history keeps being adjusted is a sure sign that we're standing on unstable ground, and our voices reflect false confidence.

[loki13]

I think we all try to shoehorn the world around us (including the history we learn) into narrative. Even if the world around us often consists of a bunch of unconnected and discrete events. It's human nature.

That said, I don't think that is the problem. Instead, I'd argue that the problem is two-fold:

1. Fitting all new information into narratives you already have. You seek out the things that agree with what you want to be true, and discard the facts that disprove your narrative.

2. Not changing your narrative when the facts change.

[Bwaaah]

Quite true. What has been *is* the fertile basis of trying to figure out what will be.

But even if the facts are unchanged and undisputed, per your #1, we selectively include and exclude the facts in order to fit our personal story of what happened. What do we try to accomplish in our telling of history?

If you're a good historian, you will be in pursuit of the most salient, relevant, as-true-as-possible story. A historian will be driven by the facts and their relative relevance. Because the historian is trying to accurately describe history. (Note that there are a lot of bad historians.)

But that's not what we civilians use history for. For most of us, the purpose of our historical narratives is to justify what we want to do next. It's like building a rhetorical runway to our future. Toward that end, we pick and choose which facts to include in our telling of history in order to rationalize whatever it is we have already decided we want to do.

Unhelpful to storytelling, life isn't unfolding as a coherent rational plan. It is the result of an ongoing competition of differing people and actions in a physical world (read: "nature") that doesn't care about human preferences. Life is inherently chaotic, and if described accurately through the telling of history, it has no sustained plot and reaches toward no particular end. It is a stream of more- or less- disjointed facts.

We put together our histories by picking the facts that are easiest to work with, setting aside the ones that aren't, and injecting little creative glue vignettes to combine what's left into something that makes us make [some] sense when we say, "And that's why we should do [blah][blah][blah]."

We back our way into histories that make our intended actions make sense. And that's why #2 in your list doesn't happen. We are not seeking truth in history. We are seeking justification. We don't change our narratives when the facts change; we change our narratives when we change our minds about which way we want to go, and we swap in and out facts conveniently, accordingly,

Some of us are less motivated by personal objectives and more facile at letting facts guide us. But not many. Most of us know where we want to go next, and history is our voiceless bitch, there to be mined in support of our already-established objectives.

[apedad]

Supreme Court deals final blow to Kim Davis appeal

The Supreme Court refused to revive an appeal by Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who sought to avoid a lower-court order to pay $360,000 after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the high court’s 2015 Obergefell ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas has urged overturning the same-sex marriage decision, but the court left that ruling intact and did not take up Davis’s case.

Thomas said, “I have called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/supreme-court-deals-final-blow-to-kim-davis-appeal/ar-AA1RTzOX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=693716065d274643a0e73514eed07d6f&ei=18

Done and done.

[Michael Ejercito]

The suit was a poor vehcile for revisiting Obergefell.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly it was a poor vehicle. The problem is that there is not really a good vehicle available to overturn Obergefell. As Justice Scalia pointed out once the Court allowed same-sex marriage in some states it effectively allowed same-sex marriage in all states. This means that the only way to end legal same-sex marriage is to ban it nationwide and that seems unlikely short of a constitutional amendment.

[DDHarriman]

I can't wait until he does erase the ruling. Biologically intact, natural families are the fundamental unit of any society. And they deserve special status and protections.

[apedad]

Agree with the “ fundamental unit” statement but that doesn’t preclude other family arrangements.

[DDHarriman]

Natural family units are the only arrangement that produces children, it's what makes them special.

Biologically-intact natural families produce the best outcomes for children. That's why they are elevated too.

[Moderation4ever]

So your saying that Chief Justice Roberts' family and that many families like his that are made up of parent with adopted children are unnatural? Is that correct?

[DDHarriman]

I am saying family structures where the children directly descend from birth from both parents is a natural family.

This is just stating a fact. A definition. Why would you want me to repeat myself about a flat unconterversial, accurately descriptive, phrase?

[Moderation4ever]

As I noted above erasing the ruling will not be enough. Even if a state could ban the practice couples could be married in states allowing marriage and the marriage would have to be respected in all states. It is just the way the laws works.

[DDHarriman]

China's trade surplus just surpassed $1T. Is that good or bad for their economy? Or neutral, has no effect good or bad?

[Litoky]

What now is the most accurate translation of stare decisis?

[hobie]

'"The legal principle that ensures consistency, except when five out of nine people suddenly have a different opinion'

[loki13]

You're not wrong.

That said, stare decisis is something that (back in the day) I did a lot of academic work on. It's actually really fascinating. There's a difference between vertical SD (the kind that binds lower courts to the rulings of a higher court's authority) and horizontal SD (prior decisions from the same court).

Horizontal SD is the truly fascinating one- different courts have different rules for it; for example, some courts might treat it as binding, except certain circumstances (an appellate court might consider a past panel precedent to be binding unless an en banc ruling occurs).

But normally, people are talking about "weak horizontal SD" when it comes to the Supreme Court. And there are formal rules that they use (which, of course, they have broken on occasion). A fairly good examination of the way it is SUPPOSED to work was provided in Scalia's concurrence in Part IV of FEC v. WRTL, 551 US 449 (2007).

You need to start with the WHY of SD on the Supreme Court. I would argue for two reasons- obviously, it protects reliance interests (people rely on the prior decision). The second is judicial minimalism ... we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and we don't want every justice assuming they are the smartest ever, and thinking that they have all the answers and can causally disregard what came before (small-c conservatism).

From there, you first get the counter-intuitive idea that constitutional SD is WEAKER than statutory SD, but the reason for that is only SCOTUS can change constitutional interpretations, but Congress can step in if SCOTUS gets a statute wrong (Lily Ledbetter).

The issue that I (and so many others) have isn't just the SD issue; for example, I think that Dobbs was incorrect, but SCOTUS is gonna do what they gonna do. Instead, it's that we are seeing a failure of regular process happen over and over again. Because SD isn't just about the Supreme Court; there are very clear rules about the lower courts following what the Supreme Court is doing- rules like, "Follow SCOTUS precedents unless and until is is clearly overruled in an actual opinion." But this SCOTUS isn't doing that- it's manipulating the shadow docket, scolding the lower courts for not reading its mind, and issuing contradictory orders that always seem to have the same result. Standards are disregards in regular matters, and there is no certainty on basic issues (like who gets a stay and who doesn't, who gets to bypass CoAs and who doesn't, what is an emergency appeal and what isn't) other than, it seems, the identity of a litigant.

Which is the real problem.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Humphrey's Executor be as dead as Humphrey?

[loki13]

In other news .... Alina Habba just formally resigned from a position she doesn't have.

Welcome to the dumbest timeline.

Note that this is perfectly in keeping with the Trump Department of Vengeance's Commitment to appeal the ruling of the 3d Cir. (hasn't happened yet) or the ED Va. (hasn't happened yet) as "lawless."

Also, the timing? She did this just after Bondi and Blanche had the DOtV release a statement attacking the EDVA in what had to be the most unhinged statement I have read from a Trump agency ... well, at least in the past four days.

Honestly, though, seeing something like this come out of the Department formerly associated with Justice was shocking, and would have been THE major news story in any normal time. It's a great way to make the judiciary think that you're on the level, too.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL they made her a senior advisor.

The participation trophy of political positions.

[loki13]

Obviously, they need her to consult in order to take advantage of her ... legal acumen.

I can't even with this clown show.

[DDHarriman]

>I can't even with this clown show.

What are you? A 13 year old girl?

[David Nieporent]

Obviously, they need her to consult in order to take advantage of her ... legal acumen.

Won't you feel stupid when she singlehandedly saves the federal parking garage.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It could be worse. FIFA could have given her an award.

[loki13]

Thought for the day-

I have finally realized how I can reconcile Trump's contradictory actions (blowing up boats in the Caribbean while pardoning one of the most notorious narco-traffickers who murdered people and helped El Chapo bring 500 tons of Cocaine into the US to shove up our noses...).

See, Trump is PRO-DRUG, but ANTI-DRAG!

He's all about getting more DRUGS into America, but very much about protecting 'Murikans from ... DRAG. That's right ... we will soon hear that the second strike was because we were terrified that the two survivors might dress in gender-inappropriate clothing.

[hobie]

If the smugglers were smart, they'd put a big campaign banner as tarp over the boat that reads: Vote for Pedro.

No matter what crimes you've done or are doing, if you're running for office, a missile strike would be considered lawfare

[Bob from Ohio]

Illegal aliens are law abiding!

Suspect arrested in stabbing on the same Charlotte light rail line where Ukrainian refugee was killed
By Alaa Elassar
Updated 21 hr ago

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/06/us/charlotte-train-stabbing-oscar-solarzano

[hobie]

[two days ago in the Carolinas. Yet another white MAGA stabbing someone to death] "Deputies say they arrested 35-year-old Brandon Wayne Hopkins. He is being charged with Murder and Possession of a Weapon During a Violent Crime. "

https://www.wyff4.com/article/deputies-investigating-easley-homicide-south-carolina/69651205

[Sarcastr0]

Aryanism is old and busted.

Welcome MAGA, to Arianism!

“ Nine months later, God became man when Mary gave birth to a son, Jesus, who would go on to offer his life on the Cross for the redemption of sins and the salvation of the world.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/12/presidential-message-on-the-feast-of-the-immaculate-conception/

[Moderation4ever]

I was under the impression that the Virgin Mary was a Catholic thing and not something that Protestants went in for?

BTW - The Koran also celebrate the immaculate conception. Koran, Book of Mary verse 20 through 25. (FWIW - I am reading from the Arberry translation of the Koran)

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's more an emphasis thing.

But 'God became man' is where I'm focusing.

We got some homoiousios heresy in the house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsZXHPDwsw

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But 'God became man' is where I'm focusing."

Huh? That's not the Homoiousios Heresy. The idea that God became man isn't controversial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not within Christianity, anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Fair enough.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The presidential message seems to flow back and forth from what Catholics believe and statements of fact.

"In one of the most profound and consequential acts of history, Mary heroically accepted God’s will with trust and humility."

Yes, according to a birth narrative, biblical scholars generally think it is not a reflection of historical fact. It is not an "act of history."

As to the Hail Mary, were the people clinging to those boats praying that before the so-called "double tap"?

[David Nieporent]

"In one of the most profound and consequential acts of history, Mary heroically accepted God’s will with trust and humility."

It ranks right up there in history with Lily Potter's sacrifice of her life to protect Harry.

[Brett Bellmore]

I see that H&HS has "accurate named" Robert Levine's official portrait.

“Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health.”

From another source, "The change also coincides with new internal policies that require all official records, photographs, and public-facing communications to reflect biological sex markers unless a court-ordered name change or medical classification is legally documented."

Robert apparently neglected to do that.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus, what an asshole you are.

It neither picks your pocket nor punches your nose for you to address someone as they request.

And here you are gloating in petty meanness for no other reason than that you love it when the outgroups are bound.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Who is "bound" to do what? Calling him Robert neither picks his pockets nor punches his nose. Nor yours.

[Magister]

Pretty obviously the outgroup, transgender people, is bound by not being able to use their chosen names, or any of the other abuse directed at them. I'm guessing that many of the people gloating over this wouldn't like it if their official portrait was labeled, accurately, "Flaming asshole".

Kind of interesting that "gold standard science" can be overturned by a court.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Pretty obviously the outgroup, transgender people, is bound by not being able to use their chosen names,"

Huh? Who's unable to use their chosen name?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that shocking: They're using his actual legal name, because he apparently neglected to legally change it. And referring to him as "him" because he's a guy.

If you go to a court to get your name changed from Robert to "Rachel", your name for legal purposes is now "Rachel". The legitimacy of a court ordering everybody to lie about your sex is more questionable.

[loki13]

The irony of a consistent Trump supporter (and that is what you are, Brett, given that you, like Sir Mix-a-lot, love the Big But ...) whinging about people "lying" creates so much irony that I am sure that the gravitational pull makes an irony singularity.

[Michael P]

A mobile-app developer is suing Trump administration officials because Apple applied its own guidelines to remove his app from the App Store.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/08/nx-s1-5631826/iceblock-app-lawsuit-trump-bondi

I am sure that all those who explained why Twitter, Facebook and others were entitled to ban users that the Biden admin complained about will say that their previous arguments apply here, and a fortiori an app is not speech itself but merely facilitates speech or conduct.

[hobie]

[3 days ago] "The Trump administration has moved to formalize a crackdown on the issuance of visas...

...The order, which state department officials have not denied, requires enhanced vetting of applicants “to see if they have worked in areas that include activities such as misinformation, disinformation, content moderation, fact-checking, compliance and online safety, among others”

Safety...like if some student from Israel questions vaccines

You know, I kinda like this wave of government censorship. We can tell anyone to stop talking about anything so that they can receive government favor. I'll admit this is a bit different from past MAGA positions

[hobie]

I got AI, Michael.

"Are there any acts of censorship under the Trump administration?"

- Targeting the Press: The administration has taken actions against news organizations, such as banning Associated Press reporters from White House press pool events after they refused to use the name "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico". Additionally, offices for major legacy media outlets in the Pentagon were removed and given to more conservative-leaning organizations.

- "Banned Words" in Government Agencies: Reports indicate that federal agencies were given lists of "banned words" and phrases to be removed from official documents, websites, and research grants, including terms like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion," "transgender," and "climate change".

- Pressure on Independent Agencies: The Trump administration has faced accusations of politically motivated pressure on independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take action against media outlets critical of the president. This included an attempt to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel's show, which was later reversed due to public outcry.

- Website and Data Removal: Federal health and science websites saw the removal of data and guidance related to topics like gender identity, equity, and certain health information.

- Targeting Individuals and Organizations: The administration has been accused of using the power of the federal government to target political opponents, including mass firings of federal employees based on their policy work, revoking visas of individuals based on their social media posts, and threatening universities' funding over their diversity and inclusion policies.

- Executive Orders: President Trump has issued executive orders aimed at "restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship" which, in practice, have been interpreted by critics as efforts to target social media content moderation and research into disinformation, potentially emboldening the spread of false information.

- Censoring Human Rights Reports: The State Department faced accusations of "whitewashing" and censoring critical findings in annual human rights reports, including removing references to political prisoners and government-directed killings, allegedly to protect dictators.

[jb]

I think the direct analogy would be if people were posting locations of ICE operations or doxxing agents and Facebook or Twitter were taking down those posts. Which I think would be okay* for the same reasons.

The app stores are somewhat different, though, because they represent real market power, as the court found in Epic v Google. There's much higher switching costs to change physical devices versus going to a different website, and there's effectively only two options in the US. So I think the questions are a bit different in this case because of the dominant market positions of Apple and Google with regards to app approvals. Even more so now that Google is clamping down on side loading.

* I say "okay" because I think it's legal and should continue to be so, not necessarily because each individual moderation decision is the right one.

[hobie]

I see on youtube that some MAGA charlatans are promoting a diabetes cure. They say a bacteria is the cause of Type II and you need some antibacterial: ivermectin. But they show a vid of a wiggling world-favorite tardigrade.

[Mr. Bumble]

No link of course to see exactly what they are claiming.
There are lots of charlatans on the internets.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, I like a citation. Most of the YouTube videos I queried on diabetes seem to encourage gut bacteria to control glycemia.

[hobie]

Do you even know what a tardigrade is? I mean...I have no affection for them, but they have been proven to live in the vacuum of space and also to live in magnetic fields so strong that they literally float before your eyes. You know, I get tired of this fire-hose of lying from MAGA, and I don't say that much about it. But if you want to denigrate tardigrades...well, then we have a problem