Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Many folks have become so jaded by Donald Trump's boorish behavior that it has now become unusual for something he says to provoke the disgust that it deserves. Trump's remarks about Rob and Michele Reiner, however, are even farther beyond the pale of decency than what has unfortunately become routine for him:

“Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115724141568860081

Where, however, is the outrage from Republican elected officials? It seems that only those who already had differences with Trump, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have had the integrity to condemn Trump's blather. Why have the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and the Majority Leader in the Senate, John Thune, remained silent?

[Frank Drackman]

That's really all you have?? "45/47/(48?)" is a big Meany???

[Malika la Maize]

I realize you can’t expect a fish to notice water but this is beyond “meanie” it’s being an asshole.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something you know well?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not the guy who can’t just straightforwardly denounce this assholery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ash stake, meet hammer.
You two have work to do.

[Ridgeway]

I am assuming you are talking about vampires. Dare I ask why?

[Kazinski]

I already said he was an asshole, now I've moved on.

[myself]

I'll just add this to the long list of things that Trump did where if Obama/Biden had done the same Frank Drackman would have been utterly appalled and likely demanded impeachment.

[bernard11]

Are we really required to list all of Trump's offenses against basic decency before criticizing one particularly egregious example?

[AmosArch]

Thats totally just as bad as all the ding dong Kirk is dead posts after his political assassination you guys thought were completely fine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G4n4mtTWoAAjAad.jpg?name=orig
https://d1d167in6n39h1.archive.li/5o0of/daec1fa0b932c702d6640cd0821730b7a3c464b9.png
https://archive.is/0vQtV
https://archive.md/fH2xk
Libs: Totally appropriate and respectful!

[not guilty]

Whataboutism is all you've got? How about we contrast Trump's remarks with the grace and compassion that Rob Reiner himself showed when Piers Morgan asked Reiner for his reaction to the Kirk assassination:

“Absolute horror and I unfortunately saw the video of it,” Reiner replied. “It’s beyond belief what happened to him. That should never happen to anybody. I don’t care what your political beliefs are. That’s not acceptable. That’s not a solution so solving problems.”

“And I felt like what his wife [Erika] said at the service at the memorial they had, was exactly right,” he continued. “I’m Jewish but I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I believe in ‘do unto others’ and I believe in forgiveness and what she said to me was beautiful. She forgave his assassin. And I think that is admirable.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/rob-reiners-words-on-charlie-kirk-murder-echo-sadly-after-directors-death/ar-AA1SnkIx

[AmosArch]

Trump has talked like an unfiltered grandpa to everyone not just Reiner for years. Why are you pretending like this isn't a measure of praise from Trump given how he always communicates? you want to see real hate for others. You should have seen Reiner's social media accounts before he zotted them. Good thing we now only have the stuff to quote that portrays him always cool as a cucumber and totally not deranged by partisanship that he had to check himself into a mental facility.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/rob-reiner-says-hes-checking-into-facility-to-find-peace-after-leaving-x-for-bluesky?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=andrewklavan

[Malika la Maize]

“Trump has talked like an unfiltered grandpa to everyone not just Reiner for years.”

And you support that for President.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know what? In the 2016 primary I'd have voted for Rand Paul in a heartbeat. I didn't get that chance, it was all over but the shouting by the time the SC primary came along, but, yeah, I did vote for Trump, mostly to vote against Cruz.

In the 2024 primary I'd have voted for DeSantis. Again, I didn't get that chance, and I didn't even bother voting in the primary.

Honestly, in 2016 I was scared that he'd pivot to the left if he got elected, thank goodness the Democrats had nuked their bridges to him from orbit. But I did vote for him, or at least against Hillary. Then in 2020 I voted against Biden, and in 2024 against Harris.

I vote defensively these days, to keep the worst candidate with a chance out of office, candidates I actually WANT not being on offer. I really wish the Democrats would stop puking up such awful candidates. For a little while I hoped that Tulsi Gabbard might at some point end up the Democratic nominee, and I'd vote Democratic for President for the first time in my life. But they drove her out of the party. Too sane, I guess.

[Malika la Maize]

By all means say he’s an asshole but better than the alternative, but people like Mikie Q below can’t even say this is assholery. It’s a cult or Clinton was being too kind with “deplorables.”

Like all assholes he’s going to be that way until he’s held to account and at this point only his base can do that. But they can’t or won’t.

[Michael P]

Every accusation is a confession from the ban evader who can't decide whether to present as a queen or as corn, especially when shedding crocodile tears for a fellow asshole.

You might have wanted to wait more than 5 minutes to see what I was going to answer, instead of blasting me because of your wrong assumption.

[Malika la Maize]

You had a chance to answer me the first time but it was giggles for you. If people like you were more forthcoming with denouncing assholery from this guy he’d be less of one and your party, your movement and our country would be better for it.

[Michael P]

Your performative outrage is just more effluence from an asshole.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re the one struggling to denounce a guy who said such asshole things about a recently murdered family. You and your ilk could use a little more outrage and a little less “no enemies to the right.”

[Michael P]

Of course the Kathy Griffin party lectures conservatives on the need to be outraged more.

[Malika la Maize]

Kathy Griffin is not an elected anything in the Democratic Party, Trump is your party’s nominee for and currently serving as the President. What a truly pathetic attempt at whataboutism, but I guess this is the contortion one has to make in sacrificing basic humanity to defend Dear Asshole Leader. To quote him: sad!

[Michael P]

I'm not an elected anything, in any party, and you were advising me to be more outraged. I don't want to be like Kathy Griffin, and you don't want to listen when people tell you that you are letting your outrage carry you away.

[Malika la Maize]

Your outrage isn’t going to carry you anywhere, trickles don’t do that. I’m not comparing a President to a comedian, you are. A pathetic deflection from your inability to call out assholery when your “side” does it.

[Michael P]

You are correct: I don't let outrage control my reactions like you do. And I picked Kathy Griffin as an example of what happens when non-politicians get carried away by outage, to illustrate why I think your advice on that topic is bad; I never compared her to Trump. That was just your imagination.

[Brett Bellmore]

You want my opinion?

People will vote for the lesser evil all the time, but it's psychologically hard to admit that you ARE voting for evil, just the lesser evil. So most people gradually suppress their awareness of how awful the evil they deemed lesser none the less is, and in time this tends to corrupt them, their ability to notice evil on their own side is impaired.

As a general matter, politicians are scum, and the worst of the scum rises to the top. Mentally healthy people don't WANT to enter politics, they're all nuts in SOME way, even the ones I rather like, such as Rand Paul.

The best you can hope for in politicians is that they're nuts in some way that isn't wildly dangerous, and doesn't get in the way of them doing things that are useful. That's why I cut narcissism slack, it's actually fairly harmless as political pathologies go, and basically unavoidable: Who but a narcissist WOULD think they were well suited to be President?

And this is my analysis of normal politics. Politics in America are no longer normal.

As I see it, our political class broke the Constitution in order to free themselves from its constraints. They found an exploit that in retrospect was rather obvious: The courts would not require the federal government to obey the Constitution if you staffed the judiciary with people who didn't think it should be followed, and were willing to rationalize permitting violations.

But everybody in the federal government is required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. And then they go about the job of NOT following the Constitution.

You think mentally healthy, fundamentally honest people could do that? Even if they thought the Constitution as written was a bad idea, they'd balk at swearing to uphold it knowing they were going to do something else!

So, we can only staff the government with broken people. And the further the federal government in practice diverges from the Constitution anybody can pick up and read, the more broken they must be.

I really believe we passed some critical threshold in the last decade or so, where only people too broken to properly function can still square that circle. And it's all spiraling out of control as a result.

That's why I think we desperately need a constitutional convention.

Though I doubt I'll like very much what emerges, if the written Constitution were brought into alignment with the government in practice, it would at least be POSSIBLE to staff the government with people who weren't broken, people for whom rationalizing wasn't a fundamental way of life.

[Kazinski]

What do you mean held to account?

What laws did he break?

Impeachable offenses?

A tort?

Haul him into kerfluffle Court?

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, I think that is where we are: vote for the least worst candidate.

I wonder what would happen if we had NOTA on the ballot? Is that legal?

[Mr. Bumble]

You would have wound up with whomever the Democrats were running.

[Malika la Maize]

He lives in NJ, his vote wasn’t going to matter.

[Commenter_XY]

You are correct. The People's Republic of NJ is a one-party state.

[Michael P]

NOTA only works if you have something like a Condorcet method. It breaks if the system loses information about lower-tier preferences.

The Debian operating system has a mandatory "Further Discussion" option on its ballots that represents NOTA. I don't think it has ever won a general election, although it did win in the technical committee's vote on an init system (https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00169.html).

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you can set things up so that if NOTA wins, all the candidates on the ballot are disqualified and you rerun the election with fresh candidates. But it does kind of require a substantial amount of time.

But, substantial amounts of time are available, if we so choose.

[Michael P]

One problem is susceptibility of a truncated ballot to clones: almost any plurality winner in a FPTP system could be a Condorcet loser. Repeating an election doesn't mean those preferences -- or the resulting ballots -- will necessarily change. (Instant runoff systems have different failure modes than also select Condorcet losers.)

[Brett Bellmore]

ANY voting system has situations under which it produces pathological results. The thing is, people are only willing to give a limited amount of attention to voting, so especially sophisticated voting systems are, I think, making unrealistic assumptions about how much thought people put in.

My preference for a repeat election if NOTA wins, with all the previous candidates barred from running, is that the voters have decided that, literally, nobody is better than any of the choices they were given.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Brett, I think that is where we are: vote for the least worst candidate."

Give this B.S. a rest, willya? Maybe you and Brett do vote for the "least worst candidate". I don't have the evidence to refute that. But there this substantial evidence for this:

1. You (and Brett) excuse every single illegal, unethical, sleazy, incompetent, imbecilic, and pointlessly cruel thing Trump does.

2. And you (and Brett) are regularly dishonest, hypocritical, and head-shakingly bizarre in the desperate means you use to service your orange-tinted god.

No doubt "defensively" all, right? But - hey - at least one person has you beat in this ludicrous two-step. Bwaaah is actually a liberal! He says so!

[Brett Bellmore]

You just dismiss as performative or just instantly forget every time we criticize Trump, that's all that's going on here.

Seriously, how many times have I said that, while Trump is usually pursuing ends I approve of, he's generally using the worst means possible to pursue them?

Didn't I say that he should have dropped his 2020 election challenge when the EC voted, at the latest?

That he screwed up deporting Abrego Garcia to the one country it was illegal to deport him to, and then just kept doubling down instead of owning up to the mistake?

Really, you're not demanding that we criticize Trump; We do that quite a lot. You're demanding that we both agree with YOUR every criticism of him, and never find anything he does acceptable.

Well, we don't agree with everything you say about Trump, so just get used to it.

[grb]

There are two problems, Brett:

1. For every milquetoast criticism of your orange-popsicle demi-god, there are two dozen weaseling defenses that show your premium standing in the Trump religious cult. Sorry, you have a long row to hoe before plausible deniability is achieved.

2. And it matters. In a relatively short period of time there will be a widespread universal consensus that Donald John Trump was one of the bottom-three worst presidents in United States history. (I thought of stretching the number to four, but no).

This will easily occur within a generation. Now, you and I are getting on in years but - with a modicum of decent fortune - we'll be here to see it. When the tykes dangle off your knee and ask, "Great-Grandpa Brett, what did you do when that Trump guy made the U.S. an international laughingstock?", I'm not sure all this equivocation will be an adequate response.....

[Brett Bellmore]

A combination of confirming what I said, and projecting your personal feelings on history.

Neither you nor I know how the future will view Trump. Depends a lot on what happens in the next few years.

[bernard11]

Brett,

About 90% of the times you criticize Trump, you include something a Democrat did or said that you didn't like.

And you equate their statement with that of Trump, no matter how minor a figure the Democrat is. Or, you claim that the statement represented the unanimously held position of your imagined demonic "Left."

[Brett Bellmore]

So, your demand isn't just that I criticize Trump, but that I avoid criticizing Democrats?

Look, I think Trump is the lesser evil, (Albeit not nearly as lesser as I'd hoped.) expecting me to not mention the greater evil is a bridge too far.

The thesis above I was disputing wasn't that we didn't have the right mix of partisan criticism in the opinion of an opposing partisan. It was that we didn't criticize the guy at all.

[Davedave]

GRB>

"In a relatively short period of time there will be a widespread universal consensus that Donald John Trump was one of the bottom-three worst presidents in United States history. (I thought of stretching the number to four, but no)."

Clearly arguing with Trump nuts, and being exposed to their propaganda, has rotted your mind. Four? Three? He's unquestionably the worst President in US history by a wide, wide margin.

Buchanan was a shit head as well as a shit president, but Trump is the _only_ US President who is generally accepted to have been a well-paid traitor working for a foreign power during his presidency.

The rest of the world doesn't wonder about what Trump is. They wonder why on earth you lunatics haven't tried, convicted, and executed him yet.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, the caterwauling of this group. It is truly something to behold, Brett. They haven't figured out yet that they are not the lesser evil.

[Joe_dallas]

Trump has some issues as president, but bottom three? Not even close to the bottom 3 lower middle.

However ranking Biden in recent polls as 13th 14th or 15th best president shows just how disconnected commentators are from anything resembling reality

[bernard11]

So, your demand isn't just that I criticize Trump, but that I avoid criticizing Democrats?

No. Criticize Dems all you want.

But don't, every time you criticize Trump, find some picayune matter to throw in, and use it to suggest equivalence (or worse).

"No. Trump shouldn't have dropped that nuclear bomb on London, but hey, the Democratic sheriff of East Someplace County shot and wounded a prisoner in custody, and the Left (in the form of his brother and no one else) is defending him."

[Kazinski]

There is a lot not to like about Trump, personally, politically, and administratively.

But he is doing a better job in office and setting up the country better for success than anyone in at least 50 years.

Maybe since Eisenhower.

[grb]

Let us now bow our heads and pray (said the Cultist).

[Sarcastr0]

This admin is here for revenge.

It's cute you think they're making anything better.

From DOGE to Vance the Cabinet, they sure don't seem to think they're making anything better.

Trump's throwing off obviously fake numbers about how much better he's making things, but no one takes him seriously.

You don't even seem to think anything is going better in any obvious sense, or else you wouldn't be digging up increasingly obscure economic metrics to point everyone to.

This is the vengeance admin, and turns out that's not really the change people voted for.

[Commenter_XY]

For the first time in a long time, there will be a substantial RIF at the Federal level, Kaz. We haven't see DC workforce RIFs like this since post WW2. There is a slim shot at taming the bureaucracy, and/or DOGE-ing a bunch more.

[Randal]

But he is doing a better job in office and setting up the country better for success than anyone in at least 50 years.

This is an ideological statement, not an objective one. Yes, Trump is really good at making conservatives think that he's "setting up the country for success." But can you point to anything that's actually better? No. Everything's worse for every actual person, except possibly the Trump family themselves, who've been raking it in off the presidency.

Who was it Brett was echoing for a while... maybe Trump himself... who was saying that it's gotta get worse before it gets better. Just think of how retarded that is. MAGA's given themselves an out: no matter how bad things get under Trump, it's all about "setting up the country for [future] success!" And when that success never comes to pass and the country gets shitty enough for people to stop electing Republicans, the stupid, stupid Bretts and Kazinskis of the world get to say "It's the Democrats' fault! They weren't willing to let the conservative programme play out to its glorious conclusion! With just a few more years of [disastrous] conservative ideology as policy, America would've turned the corner for sure and become the right-wing utopia we all know in our hearts it can be!" Oh my god what a pathetic lot.

[Kazinski]

See the headline on the front page of reason:

The Federal Government Has Shed 271,000 Jobs This Year. That's Great.

[Sarcastr0]

The US economy added 64,000 jobs November. But the unemployment rate jumped to 4.6%, the highest since September 2021.

I don’t think these are useful numbers to tell anything about long term prospects. But even so you cherry pick so much.

[Randal]

The Federal Government Has Shed 271,000 Jobs This Year. That's Great.

Like I said, that might be ideologically great for conservatives, but who is it actually great for? Not the people fired, that's for sure. Not the people benefitting from the work that the fired people fired were doing.

I'm sure you're thinking "taxpayers" but that's future and speculative. Has the debt or deficit actually gone down? No. Have taxes been cut? Not really, and certainly not in any way that can be attributed to the RIFs. But unemployment is up, and that's hurting the economy for everyone.

And it's not inevitable for "taxpayers" to somehow someday benefit from the RIFs. If, as seems likely, Trump just uses the money to wage some War of the Retards set in Venezuela, then truly no one will have benefitted (and a lot of people will have been hurt).

So, please limit your enthusiasm to examples where actual people's actual lives are actually better. Got anything in that arena?

[Malika la Maize]

Btw-I wrote in Hogan (Larry, not Hulk) in the primary and general, it’s not like my vote was going to matter in Maryland.

[Commenter_XY]

Have you ever read the names of write in votes, for amusement? Some of the names are hilarious, here are some examples (from our last election), just from my county in NJ.

Jesus Christ
God
None of the Above
I Dont Even Know Any Of These
Any One Else
My Holy Spirit
An American
Ziltoid
Baby Dave
Batman
Nope
Netanyanu
Karl Marx
Libertarian
Free Palestine
Joseph Stalin
Benito Mussalini
Porky Pig
Mickey Mouse

Some names, you just shake your head.

[Krayt]

Some names, you just shake your head.

Some around here "like Putin". A literal quote.

[Brett Bellmore]

Enjoy it while you can, they're in the process of eliminating write in votes. And the Supreme court has already blessed doing so.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Random write-in votes like those above are already not counted in almost every state. A valid write-in candidate has to be identified and certified prior to the election, and a list of valid write-in candidates for each office is posted at each election site. It's one of the many signs at the polling place no one ever reads.

[David Nieporent]

Who is this "they"? Are you doing that thing again where you take a couple of changes to election rules from 50 years ago and pretend it's a burgeoning trend rather than something that happened half a century ago and not since?

[Brett Bellmore]

That Hawaii case was in '92.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I'm aware of that. That's when someone sued, not when Hawaii enacted its election laws.

[Randal]

That Hawaii case was in '92.

Hahahahaha snort. Brett, you need a calendar. Wake up! You're no longer a 30-something.

[not guilty]

"Trump has talked like an unfiltered grandpa to everyone not just Reiner for years. Why are you pretending like this isn't a measure of praise from Trump given how he always communicates?"

AmosArch, if you find anything remotely resembling "a measure of praise from Trump" in his obnoxious remarks, I would question your grasp of reality.

Here is an example of a gracious and classy Presidential eulogy of crime victims:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Obama+remarks+Dylann+Roof+victims&cvid=cf21b67936e0484f92eb71a6a087a2af&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxODcxN2owajmoAgiwAgE&PC=HCTS&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dObama%2bremarks%2bDylann%2bRoof%2bvictims%26cvid%3dcf21b67936e0484f92eb71a6a087a2af%26gs_lcrp%3dEgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxODcxN2owajmoAgiwAgE%26FORM%3dANAB01%26PC%3dHCTS&mmscn=vwrc&mid=61497AC976652F5004E561497AC976652F5004E5&FORM=WRVORC&ntb=1&msockid=0b25920fda8811f09c930af1451119e1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/18/full-text-obamas-remarks-on-fatal-shooting-in-charleston-s-c/

Donald Trump has never been fit to shine Barack Obama's shoes.

[Riva]

Maybe the news of more consequence is President Trump declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction? The Islamic terrorist attack in Australia? Brown University? But I guess there's no incentive for the trolls, voluntary or rent-a-trolls, to focus on anything relevant. If they did, they wouldn't be trolls.

[windycityattorney]

So do you think doctors will have to no longer use fentanyl in operating rooms now that its a weapon of mass destruction? Does all fentanyl legally owned/stored get seized by the govt??

This administration seems incapable of looking at collateral consequences for the dumb shit they do. And this is pretty stupid...obviously in service to future incursions into foreign countries or new wars for the 'peace' president.

[Riva]

I would think only dumb fucks like "windycityattorney" would fail to understand that the President's executive order applies to illicit fentanyl, meaning "fentanyl that is manufactured, distributed, or dispensed, or possessed with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense in violation of section 401 and 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 846)."

For the benefit of all dumb fucks out there, this is not the regulated drug used in medical settings. Such a clarification is obviously not necessary for doctors in operating rooms, who, one hopes, are not among such dumb fucks by definition. Are you really an attorney, or do you just play one here?

[David Nieporent]

Um, something is either a weapon of mass destruction or it isn't. The subjective intent of the person in possession of it doesn't change its essence.

Also, I would think that even a bot could figure out that there is no such thing legally as a president designating something as a WMD, and that's just to fool people into thinking he's doing something. The actual operative provisions of the EO in question have nothing to do with WMDs, aren't in any way meaningful or legally significant, and are already done. Like, LOL:

the Attorney General shall immediately pursue investigations and prosecutions into fentanyl trafficking, including through criminal charges as appropriate, sentencing enhancements, and sentencing variances

You mean if it were only a controlled substance the government wouldn't be investigating or prosecuting trafficking?

[Riva]

I guess one can't underestimate the dumbs shits out there. Maybe you should suggest to your local hospital to use illicit fentanyl in lieu of pharmaceutical fentanyl produced in FDA-regulated laboratories? It's probably cheaper. And no expensive subsequent treatment or rehabilitation would ever be necessary for the patient, who would be dead.

[bernard11]

Maybe you should suggest to your local hospital to use illicit fentanyl in lieu of pharmaceutical fentanyl produced in FDA-regulated laboratories?

Well, at least Riva is making a good case for federal regulation.

[Riva]

No, I'm making a case against illicit fentanyl.

[Randal]

Remember that time when Rivabot revealed that it doesn't know what "illicit" means?

[Randal]

Maybe the news of more consequence is President Trump declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction?

Oh Riva you've outdone yourself! You must've gotten an upgrade.

Out of curiosity, what consequence do you think President Trump declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction actually has?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Why are you commenting?? You should be watching Erika Kirk all of the 16 hours a day she is on Fox News every day!! After all, her husband died for your sins!! Oh wait, who’s watching the kids?? KEVIN!!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to thank you for convincing ,e that what Trump did was legitimate.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Who’s watching the children????

[Malika la Maize]

This is particularly terrible whataboutism, this is a sitting President we are talking about not rando internet posters ands talking heads. This is the guy you support to be President of the United States.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As opposed to US Senators Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodds, and Waitress Sandwiches?

Kennedy was Senator all my life -- that should be on the same level as a shot-term POTUS.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, if you are still living, Ted Kennedy has not been a senator for all your life. He died sixteen years ago.

And when did either Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator Chris Dodds make wildly inappropriate comments about a recently deceased murder victim?

Whataboutism is usually an admission of having nothing of substance to offer as to the original subject matter, but your shtick here doesn't even rise to the dignity of whataboutism.

[David Nieporent]

That response manages to be (a) whataboutism; (b) dishonest whataboutism, as it just lies about what "you guys" said; and (c) incredibly fucking stupid whataboutism, because you are comparing what completely unknown people online said vs. what the president of the united states said.

How incredibly pathetic are MAGA that they think "Trump is no worse than other Internet trolls" is a defense of Trump?

[Joe_dallas]

Just like NG
Consistently inconsistent

[jb]

So your theory is that the standard of behavior we should expect from the President of the United States is....check notes...mean random comments on the Internet? And that this is somehow making America great again?

Personally, I kind of liked the times when we could look to the President as a source of inspiration and who could help being the country together in times of tragedy instead of constantly being a catalyst for tearing it apart.

[Michael P]

Are you seriously complaining that only the wrong Republicans are criticizing Trump over that post? When the guy who got elected after a massive stroke is the only sane person in the Democrats' Senate caucus?

[Malika la Maize]

Do you defend what he said?

[Michael P]

I've never seen NG write anything that deserves to be defended.

[Malika la Maize]

You know what I’m talking about, do you defend Trump’s post about the Reiners?

It’s incredible that this is difficult for you people. Are you that morally depraved or just cultishly taken by the guy?

[Michael P]

I think it was a crude, vicious, untimely post that is still more sane than a lot of what Reiner wrote over the last 25 years. Reiner definitely had TDS, and spent countless words goading President Trump over the last decade. I linked to a collection of a few examples yesterday.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s one thing for celebrities and politicians to say nasty things to each other, it’s totally another to say something about a family after one of them has murdered two others. This man who you think is totally sane and you support couldn’t control his being “goaded” to not speak nastily ill of the recently murdered? Maybe that guy isn’t worthy of your toadying support for him as the President of our country.

[Michael P]

"Still more sane" (than derangement) is a far cry from "totally sane", you moron.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s whaboutism in the face of struggling to denounce out and plain assholery. I’m not sure what weird partisan calculation you’re acting on here or whether you can’t just denounce this because birds of a feather flock together.

[Michael P]

You're just too angry and stupid to read halfway decently. That's all that is going on here.

Maybe you should tone down the outrage and go touch grass or something.

[Malika la Maize]

If anyone needs to touch grass it’s a guy who can’t straightforwardly denounce assholery because he thinks he’s some Konservative Keyboard Kommando who has to exhibit “no enemies to the right” or something.

[Michael P]

How sad: you are working yourself into even more of a lather because you have decided that I am not expressing outrage in a manner you deem sufficient. You definitely need to touch grass.

[Malika la Maize]

No one is in a lather. It doesn’t take much effort to type a few words indicating you have the standards of a normal, decent person. It’s just sad so many people, like yourself, can’t even do that because they’ve sacrificed their decency for partisanship.

[Michael P]

Should I point out here that you have repeatedly declined "to type a few words indicating you have the standards of a normal, decent person" by rejecting Kathy Griffin's partisan stunt?

Your shambolic, puerile outrage that I didn't act more angry when I criticized Trump's post is truly pathetic. You're just proving that you do need to take a break from this.

[jb]

The thing you're missing in your analysis is that people have "TDS" precisely because of Trump's behavior like this. Trump inspires strong reactions from both sides of the political divide because of his norm-breaking behavior, although this feels like a particularly egregious example. People don't hate Trump more than other right-wing politicians because his ideas are extra scary, but because he has such a corrosive effect on the cultural fabric.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's too simple. There are a lot of things going on with Trump.

1. Trump is on the tail end of a decades long trend of partisans increasingly hating the opposing party's President just because they ARE the opposing party's President. That's enough to account for most of it; Democrats hate Trump more than previous right-wing politicians just because he's the most recent, and the hate has been growing.

2. Trump was an insurgent in the GOP, not an establishment candidate, which automatically earned him the hatred of the GOP establishment whose control he threatened. This meant that he not only got less institutional support than previous Republican Presidents, but that there were a wealth of Republican figures eager to tear him down. Even if they had to tear the GOP down at the same time; Rule or ruin!

3. Yeah, he's a real asshole. Even his supporters recognize that, they just figure he's their asshole, and at least he's usually inside the tent pissing out.

So, it's over-determined, actually.

[jb]

There's some merit to #1 (witness, after all, the whole FJB/Let's Go Brandon thing), but I also think that if you actually look at the graphs Democrats generally were relatively open to have positive opinions of Republican presidents prior to Trump, and that declining approval generally mirrored declining approval from

As for #2, Trump isn't meaningfully an insurgent from a policy perspective. (Tariffs being probably the most notable exception.) Especially in the 2016 campaign and his first term essentially all of his positions were bog-standard Republican orthodoxy. Mainstream Republicans at the time hated him for the same reasons that Democrats do now: he's egotistical, amoral, norm-busting, and toxic to the cohesion of the nation. You're right that he didn't particularly care about the legacy Republican apparatus and this certainly set a few people against him permanently, but as we've seen in Congress the vast majority of folks just fell in line once his control of the party became clear.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but I also think that if you actually look at the graphs Democrats generally were relatively open to have positive opinions of Republican presidents prior to Trump,"

I mean, I literally linked to a graph showing the opposite. Here's another.

Eisenhower: 39% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 49% approval from Democrats.

Kennedy: 35% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 49% approval from Republicans

Johnson: 30% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 40% approval from Republicans

Nixon: 41% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 34% approval from Democrats.

Ford: 31% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 36% approval from Democrats.

Carter: 27% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 30% approval from Republicans.

Reagan: 52% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 31% approval from Democrats.

Bush the elder: 38% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 44% approval from Democrats.

Clinton: 55% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 27% approval from Republicans.

Bush the younger: 61% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 23% approval from Democrats.

Obama: 67% difference in approval rating between the parties, he got 14% approval from Republicans.

Trump first term: 81% difference in approval ratings between the parties, he got 6% approval from Democrats.

Biden: 56% difference in approval ratings between the parties, he got 5 percent approval from Republicans. (The difference shrank a lot because even Democrats weren't very impressed by him.)

That looks to me like approval from the opposing party has been dropping since at least Bush the elder, and would have wound up in the single digits for the opposite party regardless of who got nominated.

[jb]

Bush the Elder started with >50% approval from Democrats and the approval went UP until his approval rating cratered with both parties.

Bush the Younger started with >40% approval from Democrats and steadily declined (although other than a bump from 9/11 and the initial success of the Iraq war, it also steadily declined amongst Republicans).

Democratic Presidents haven't seen those levels of approval from Republicans since Johnson.

[Life of Brian]

but I also think that if you actually look at the graphs Democrats generally were relatively open to have positive opinions of Republican presidents prior to Trump,

The word "generally" is doing a bit of work there, I think. As I read the graphs, D opinions of W cratered about 3 years into his first term and over the next 5 years never even recovered to the level of R opinions of Clinton (or Obama, for most of his term).

The really interesting point on the graph, I think, is Reagan. That's where the height of the gray band (same/opposite party approval delta) noticeably widened and hasn't noticeably recovered for any president since, beyond a brief honeymoon period for Bush Sr.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously any given President is going to have popularity drivers particular to his administration, and members of the same party are going to approve of them more than members of the opposing party. What I've been looking at is the GAP between those ratings, not the absolute level. And what I see is that gap trending wider and wider over decades.

It's my conclusion that, at this point, a President's (un)popularity with the opposing party is totally baked in. Presidential approval numbers are barely more than people identifying their party affiliation.

[Sarcastr0]

Presidential approval numbers are barely more than people identifying their party affiliation.

A wishfull attempt to deflect from Trump's current polling.

jb provided plenty of counterexamples to that. Hell, polling trends in general show a higher absolute number and more volatility than party affiliation.

Just because you're 100% baked in for your party doesn't mean everyone is, Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

"A wishfull attempt to deflect from Trump's current polling."

Trump's current polling has him within a few percent of where he's been for months. OK, his honeymoon didn't last long. Didn't last very long last time, either.

If I look at the Economist/YouGov poll, approval among Republicans and leaners is 85%, and approval among Democrats and leaners is 5%.

Perfectly ordinary Presidential approval numbers in this era, quite comparable to his first term.

[jb]

Brett--we're going to have to wait until after the post-Trump era to see if his polling numbers are the logical conclusion of the trend you've highlighted, or just part of the weird, awful spectacle that is Trump. Biden's numbers certainly support your thesis, but I'm kind of hoping that once Trump is actually off the stage our political discourse can get a bit more back to normal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let's not forget, this is the post Trump era. You guys beat him. You convinced the public to vote him out of office.

The adults were back in charge, and things were supposed to get back to normal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, we don't know if Trump is going to continue through his whole term at these numbers, recover, or decline. I'm simply asserting he hasn't suffered some sort of catastrophic decline.

But one thing I'm pretty confident of: After Trump leaves the White House, things aren't 'returning to normal'. "Normal" is dead.

On the Republican side, Trump has shattered the GOP establishment's death grip on the party, that allowed them over and over to foist on the base candidates who would reliably would not deliver what the base wanted. For at least a few election cycles, the GOP is actually going to be trying to do what its voters have been voting for. Probably very clumsily at first.

On the Democratic side, the gerontocrats are dying off, to be replaced by a much younger and more radical group.

This isn't unprecedented. Rather, in the long stretch of American history, it's a return to the REAL normal, after a long post WWII period when democracy wasn't really working because the leadership of the major parties actually agreed on most things.

It's going to be really scary for a lot of people, having 2 parties, not 1.5...

[David Nieporent]

On the Republican side, Trump has shattered the GOP establishment's death grip on the party, that allowed them over and over to foist on the base candidates who would reliably would not deliver what the base wanted. For at least a few election cycles, the GOP is actually going to be trying to do what its voters have been voting for. Probably very clumsily at first.

We're back to this fanfic. Never happened. "The base" is your imagination. Of course the GOP didn't always deliver what its voters wanted, because that happens only in a dictatorship — where the dictator decides what the voters want — not a democracy. In the latter, there are people who disagree with each other and have to be accommodated and negotiated with, not dictated to. What Trump has done is simply ignore the law when it doesn't allow him to do what he wants.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A stake, made of Ash...

[Michael P]

It's called rump roast, Dr. Ed. Please work on that lisp.

[Kazinski]

Nobody is defending Trumps post.

But it doesn't matter, its just all you have this week, but the news cycle has moved on.

Time for the next outrage.

[Joe_dallas]

exactly faux outrage.
TDS runs deep.
What really shows the depravity is the level of Brett DS.
completely irrational reaction to reasonable observations

[ThePublius]

I don't like what Trump said after Reiner's death. But, Reiner has been a strident, vociferous, and insulting public critic of Trump for a decade. So, there's that. You reap what you sow.

[Estragon]

“Reap what you sow”

This expression is usually defined as eventually having to face the consequences of your actions.

What is the connection, in your mind, between being a “strident, vociferous, and insulting public critic of Trump” and being murdered in cold blood by a family member? You seem to view being murdered as a foreseeable consequence of being a critic of Trump.

When Trump refers to people “driven crazy” by Reiner having “TDS” do you identify with that? Are you “angry” when others express views you categorize as “deranged”? Angry enough to kill?

[ThePublius]

No, by sow I meant Reiner's open criticisms of Trump, and reap Trump's criticisms of Reiner.

[Estragon]

Oh, that’s a relief

[Riva]

May I suggest, Not Guilty, that you find a new hobby to replace this unhealthy obsession with President Trump? If you don’t want to read his posts on Truth Social, don’t subscribe. People support President Trump because they support his policy agenda. He is not above criticism and some supporters may not actually like all his posts. Democrats are the ones obsessed with personality cults and leadership that can do no wrong.

(Of course trolling could be your job, it is for others here)

[Estragon]

Vile and almost surreally narcissistic. Trumpists unmoved, but of course they are: this is a feature, not a bug. This is the party of people who brought their kids to a political rally to laugh at the idea of an 80 year old ostensible political enemy being assaulted and struck in the head with a hammer in the entryway of his own home like it was a Jeff Foxxworthy bit.

Decency left long ago. It is evidence of further disinhibition. I would expect more of the same going forward. Typically, this is the moment you take grandpa’s phone, but I don’t get the sense he is surrounded by people of, shall we say, the appropriate mindset to take action.

[Estragon]

And almost as if on cue we are hearing from Susie Wiles and how she tried ever so hard to stop the excesses. Looking for the exits, sensing accountability on the horizon? I wouldn’t bet on it these days, but it is interesting.

[gVOR08]

Comments here make it clear someone's deranged about Trump, and I don't think it's the left.

[jb]

Another interesting thing about Trump's post:

For all of MAGA's attempts to claim* that political violence is the exclusive purview of the left, Trump at least believes that there are MAGAs out there that would kill his political opponents for the sole crime of having mean things to say about him.

* Despite the fact that all evidence points to the opposite conclusion

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 8 hours ago
"Whataboutism is all you've got'

consistently inconsistent.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why have the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and the Majority Leader in the Senate, John Thune, remained silent?"

Because they aren't cats chasing the pointer like you guys.

The "tweet" has zero impact on any government policy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“The "tweet" has zero impact on any government policy.”

This actually isn’t true given the current position of Trump, Republicans, and people like yourself on the scope of executive power.

The current argument is that executive power is both extremely broad and vested in one man. In particular he has massive amounts of power, much of it unreviewable, on matters of crime and punishment and life and death.

Therefore his personal responses to things like murders is actually highly relevant to government policy. You can’t simultaneously argue he has practically unlimited power to decide who lives and dies AND that his views on such matters have no relevance or impact on anything. They’re completely related.

[Bob from Ohio]

His personal response to some random thing he had nothing to do with is just that, a personal response.

Its nothing more important. Your mileage may vary.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“His personal response to some random thing he had nothing to do with is just that, a personal response.”

But he thinks he has something to do with it! He told us! And his personal response to anything is highly relevant when you’re claiming he personally gets to decide things like who lives and who dies,
or who goes to jail and who goes free.

You can’t have it both ways, Bob. If you want a system where one person is given immense power, his personal opinions and responses to things matters greatly. It’s the most important thing.

You want a shitty person to have monarchical powers? You’re going to have to own his shittiness. It’s a package deal and you need to reckon with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, whatever.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. That’s what I thought lol.

[Kazinski]

Still have people skeptical about why the why the FBI couldn't find the j6 pipebomber when they were sitting on the data for more than years.

https://x.com/i/status/2000489064534004164

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think Orin Kerr is thinking cover up.

[Commenter_XY]

Incompetence isn't much better.

[Sarcastr0]

Point it let’s not put words in Kerr’s mouth.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not. Professor Kerr speaks for himself. And I thank Professor Kerr for his post and calling attention to the matter.

It took someone new coming in with computer programming skills to write code to decipher the geolocation data. That is the essence of what I see. That 4 year delay would never fly in private industry (data sits and sits and sits for 4 years with nobody able to decipher it!?); AYFKM, no way.

Cover-up, willful blindness, agent apathy, incompetence, political bias....pick whatever label (or combination) you like. It isn't good. Taxpayers deserve better. That it was the FBI makes it even worse.

[Life of Brian]

So much of it just doesn't make a lick of sense. I can't bring myself to believe that this was the first time the FBI had ever received cell location data from Verizon, or that they somehow just provided it in a quirky format this particular time. And even if that's correct, just shrugging your shoulders and throwing the data on a shelf rather than asking Verizon how to read it doesn't seem particularly... investigatory.

[Ridgeway]

Based on absolutely no first-hand knowledge, my guess is that Palantir software was able to generate usable information out of the raw data that T-Mobile provided.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump appointed Wray!! Lol

[Mr. Bumble]

On the advice of former NJ Governor Stay Puft.
(By the way, haven't heard from him lately. Has he finally found out no one cares what he thinks? Will Mike Pence learn that lesson?)

[jb]

The answer is in the post you link to, no? This feels like an SAT reading comprehension problem that you're not doing so well at. Here, let me frame it as one:

Based on the Tweet above, which of the following offers the best explanation for why the FBI wasn't able to solve the 1/6 pipe bomb case until recently:

(A) They didn't have the necessary information
(B) They knew it was an inside job and therefore didn't want to catch the perpetrator
(C) They didn't know how to interpret the data they had received from T-Mobile
(D) Everyone at the FBI is stupid except for Dan Bongino, who personally solved the crime

[Kazinski]

"Ones body may be percieved as belonging to a larger group to which a person strongly identifies, rather than being subject to individual choices and preferences."

Its reads like Project 2025 trying to make the case for banning contraception and for forced pregnancies.

But relax, its the British Medical Journal making the case for hands off Female Genital Mutilation.

https://x.com/i/status/2000686465471164551

[Frank Drackman]

London has an Ayatollah, you're surprised their Medical Journals aren't the same?

[Riva]

The sick practice of female genital mutilation has nothing to do with taking the life of innocent unborn child. Those against abortion are actually more concerned with the innocent life that is targeted in the vile process, although also saving the mother from a bad decision she will likely regret for the rest of her life may factor in for some.

[not guilty]

Riva, if you regard what you call "baby killing" as evil, how do you reconcile that with worshipping the most prolific killer of infants in the history of the universe (if the stories set forth in the Hebrew Bible are to be believed)? For example:

Yahweh put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, causing the poor infant to suffer for a week before dying. The Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tenth Plague did not exempt the babies from the carnage.

Yahweh and his Chosen People were also huge fans of genocide, including the mass slaughter of infants and children. All quotations here are from the Revised Standard Version:

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3 (emphasis added)

"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added)

"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34

"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons." Deuteronomy 7:1-3.

"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40

In the case of Midian, as described in Numbers 31, the Hebrew army slew all the men and captured the women and children. (vv 7, 9) Moses was angered that they had let the women live. (vv 14-15) Moses ordered that all male children and every woman that had had sex be killed, sparing only the virgin females, whom the soldiers were to keep for themselves. (vv 17-18)

[Emphasis added.]

[Riva]

I'm sure to a vile anti-semite and religious bigot such as yourself warfare related to the ancient Israelis has some relevance to the practice of abortion. Sane, rational people may be confused as to how this renders an unborn human life snuffed out by abortion not a human life, or even how this responds to the asinine comment above seeking to equate abortion to the different, yet also morally repugnant practice, of female genital mutilation.

[not guilty]

My comment inquired how you reconcile your regard for what you (falsely) call "baby killing" as evil, how do you reconcile that with worshipping a deity who, if the Hebrew Bible is to be believed, is the most prolific actual killer of infants in history, either by himself or through his "Chosen People".

I am completely unsurprised that you have declined to address that incongruity.

(I take no position here on whether such Hebrew scriptures are or are not to be believed.)

[Riva]

Your demented misuse and misinterpretation of Scripture in no way provides support for the vile practice of abortion. It merely exposes your sick anti-Jewish and anti-Christian prejudices.

[not guilty]

Riva, are you copacetic about worshipping a major league baby killer? Or does your concern with "human life" extend only to the interior end of the birth canal?

Do you seriously believe that non-breathing "babies" deserve to be protected, but once a newborn draws breath and becomes an actual baby, it is on its own?

And in that regard, does Genesis 2:7 make any difference to you? https://biblehub.com/genesis/2-7.htm

[Riva]

If you'd actually like to engage in an argument on abortion or attempt to dispute the biological, scientific fact that life begins at conception, go ahead. If you're going to continue to make grossly offensive comments on Scripture and matters of faith, this exchange is over.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Exhibiting your usual evil disregard for human life.

[Nelson]

“taking the life of innocent unborn child”

There is no such thing as an unborn child. A child, by definition, has been born:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title1-section8&num=0&edition=prelim

While people use it otherwise, both colloquially or casually, legally there is no such thing as an unborn child, only an unborn fetus.

Anti-abortionists use it emotionally, to falsely imply that a fetus is a person. It’s dishonest, but most anti-abortion rhetoric is.

[Joe_dallas]

Bull S - an unborn child is still a baby, it still a human life.

A legal definition does not change biological facts

[Nelson]

The biological fact is that a fetus is a potential human being or a potential baby or a potential child.

It isn’t an *actual* anything until it is at least capable of sustaining its own life.

Viability is a common and simple biological concept, unless you’re motivated by an extremist moral code and emotion over reason.

People who are infected by such an intellectual handicap think that their personal morals should be forced on everyone else and their personal emotional beliefs should be considered more important than those of the ~90% of people who think a fertilized egg isn’t a human.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you think that everyone else should be forced to believe what you do instead of what they do, you have to have a lot more to go on than “I think potential and actual are the same thing, and that’s enough to infringe on your rights”.

[Krayt]

It's the next logical step. Female circumcision to serve a greater cause.

Old-school feminists raged against religion and culture, pointing out oppression of women was often proportional to how much they were forced to cover up.

Then politics and immigration reared its ugly head, and they were silenced by the people who should have their backs, and a meme built up it was Ok, nay, honorable, for Islamic women to voluntarily choose to cover up, so as not to tempt their men.

See, there's votes to be had, and telling them they are mean assholes doesn't get that vote.

This from the crowd who would push a button and terminate Mormon and Amish encllaves, and currently enjoys disasterbating in their favorite show, The Handmaid's Tale.

No, no! The Mormon women in their long dresses, are respecting their men's sensibilities by choosing to not tempt them! They aren't covering up because their bodies are owned by males!

[Randal]

Male genital mutilation is aggravated disfigurement of a minor.

[Frank Drackman]

Re-listened to Rob Reiner's "Club Random" interview with Bill Maher from September, he (Reiner) went on about how many people were getting killed with guns, nothing about knives, Bill did bust his balls (nicely) that it was people like Reiner who got Trump erected.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I actually think the Reiners are victims of the War on Drugs. I was addicted to cigarettes and nobody thought I had to go to rehab and I never got kicked out of a house for smoking cigarettes and I never broke any laws to acquire cigarettes and I never sucked a dick to get a cigarette.

And remember, Rush Limbaugh was on the radio for 3 hours a day 5 days a week and for years he was addicted to opioids and nobody could tell…so opioids aren’t even as bad as alcohol which you can’t work as an alcoholic and you can’t drive and nobody wants to be around you. I just don’t understand why anyone would care if someone snorts cocaine or pops a pain pill when cocaine definitely improves your work productivity for the first several years and people can work on pain pills?? Maybe I don’t want my surgeon popping pain pills but House was addicted to pain pills and he could perform that particular MD job.

[Dr. Ed 2]

House was a fictious character.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I am highly sensitive to opioids so I can only take the very lowest dose once a day…but I can work on it and drive on it while I won’t even drive after more than one Amstel Light.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"OK fine, there was that one time, but all the stores were closed, and I was really jonesing..."

[Commenter_XY]

Paging NG....Do you have a vanity plate?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/offensive-decency-supreme-court-wont-hear-free-speech-case-over-vanity-plate

Is a vanity plate 1A protected speech, or government speech?

[not guilty]

No, I don't have a vanity plate.

So far as I know, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), is still good law. SCOTUS there ruled that specialty license plate designs offered by a state are properly classified as government speech, which means that they are not subject to strict content and viewpoint restrictions under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Id., at 208-209. That case, however, did not involve personalized plates, as the Court observed. Id., at 204.

In Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, ___ S.W.4th ___, No. M2022-00083-SC-R11-CV (February 26, 2025), The Supreme Court of Tennessee applied Walker and its progeny to opine that personalized license plates are government speech. https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2022-00083-SC-R11-CV.pdf The Court there discussed and distinguished state and lower federal court decisions that had reached a contrary conclusion.

[Krayt]

Speech-for-pay, like the side of a bus. The philosophising is ridiculous in that case. They just want the money, until it becomes embarrassing.

Same here with this vanity plate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Theses license plate cases are going to read the limited public forum doctrine out of existence. The folks that didn't want to see a confederate flag on a license plate basically killed it.

Hopefully they overturn Walker, but I don't see it happening.

[Krayt]

I postulated conservative states would start banning pro-abortion messages on plates, since the state, aka the elected officials of The People, gets the honor of doing the speaking for the state.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From Alito's dissent:

Here is a test. Suppose you sat by the side of a Texas highway and studied the license plates on the vehicles passing by. You would see, in addition to the standard Texas plates, an impressive array of specialty plates. (There are now more than 350 varieties.) You would likely observe plates that honor numerous colleges and universities. You might see plates bearing the name of a high school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver.
As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: “This is the official policy of the State—better to golf than to work?” If you did your viewing at the start of the college football season and you saw Texas plates with the names of the University of Texas’s out-of-state competitors in upcoming games—Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Okla-homa, Kansas State, Iowa State—would you assume that the State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously) rooting for the Longhorns’ opponents? And when a car zipped by with a plate that reads “NASCAR – 24 Jeff Gordon,” would you think that Gordon (born in California, raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina) is the official favorite of the State government?

Alito is smarter than Bryer.

I personally was surprised that my state government believe that AGT-763, but I guess every state is entitled to its opinion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't know if Alito is "smarter" than Breyer (or Thomas, who joined Breyer's opinion in that case) as a whole. Or in that case.

The reasonable observer, seeing a plate provided by the state, with the state's name and symbol, would reasonably think the state was okay with the message.

They don't care what sports team you support. But they are fine that a government plate has sports team messages on it. Compare if Texas had to print a "I hate Jews" plate because they provided plates for universities or the like.

The person doesn't want to put a bumper sticker on their car. They want the government to supply the message on an official state plate. The state gets to make decisions on supplying that message.

It doesn't have to supply a "Buy California" license plate. They are not blocked from that choice because they decide to print a plate for competing sports teams.

The plate isn't a "traditional public forum" (like a park). The "parties agree" on the point. So, on some level, why does your excerpt even matter? Texas gets to decide either way. Breyer spells this out in detail, and my comment doesn't cover all the bases.

As to the "limited public forum doctrine," it is not going into the trash heap because states get to control what they themselves print on specialty license plates. Texas is itself "speaking," and a license plate is not akin to a park or meeting hall.

The person can still put bumper stickers and so on on the "forum" (colloquially using the term) of his car. The issue here is what the state itself is required to print.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The reasonable observer, seeing a plate provided by the state, with the state's name and symbol, would reasonably think the state was okay with the message."

What does it mean, in a free society, for a state to be "ok" with a message? "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion..."

One could just as easily perceive that a state is "OK" with a message that is being spoken in a conference room in a public building, or on an adopt-a-highway sign.

If you don't like the limited public forum doctrine, just say so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is a lot of official government speech, including the very text of the Pledge of Allegiance, involved in the case you cited.

The issue in that case was "prescribing" the speech; forcing people to say and believe it. It didn't deny the government from officially endorsing things. Governments officially say things regularly, including state mottos and songs.

One could just as easily perceive that a state is "OK" with a message that is being spoken in a conference room in a public building, or on an adopt-a-highway sign.

The three cases are different in various ways, though the sign is closer to the license plate.

If you don't like the limited public forum doctrine, just say so.

The point does not rise or fall on this case, and the majority opinion (joined by Justice Thomas) explains why. So, no, I won't.

[Michael P]

If a car with a plate that says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: “This is the official policy of the State—better to golf than to work?”

That's a really unconvincing example: the implication of the message is that the driver wants to golf, but is on the road instead. It's no more a reflection of state policy than a college-logo plate reflects a state preference for that college. Having that plate available would reflect a state evaluation that golf is more appropriate or merely more popular than some sport that doesn't have a license plate -- say, buzkashi.

[David Nieporent]

the implication of the message is that the driver wants to golf, but is on the road instead. It's no more a reflection of state policy than a college-logo plate reflects a state preference for that college.

I'm not sure why you call it an "unconvincing example" when that was exactly the point of the example.

[Michael P]

Lots of government speech does not directly reflect policy, so saying it's not policy says little about whether it's government speech. If government paints "Black Lives Matter" on a street, does that imply a policy that white lives matter less?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If government paints 'Black Lives Matter' on a street, does that imply a policy that white lives matter less?"

To the same extent that it implies that when anybody else says it. If the government paints "Black Lives Matter" then it is saying that it thinks black lives matter. What that means is between you and the government.

[David Nieporent]

Lots of government speech does not directly reflect policy, so saying it's not policy says little about whether it's government speech.

You are overreading what was intended to be a quip. The policy to which Alito was referring was endorsing the message, not creating a stage agency to implement it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Guardian reports today on an FBI-driven press conference mentioning arrests of four people in the desert outside LA. I saw the press conference broadcast live. The people charged were allegedly members of an anti-capitalist group called the Turtle Island Liberation Front, and were described as planning New Year's Eve bombing attacks in the LA area. The Guardian's report added names and photos to what was a somewhat vague performance on live TV.

Charges bruited by a lineup of federal and local LA law enforcement personnel were a miss-mash. They led with alleged purchase of bomb making materials, and holding a meeting in the desert intended to mobilize ordinary chemicals, charcoal powder, and PVC pipe to assemble bombs. Added to that were allegations of pro-Palestinian advocacy, anti-capitalism, and Antifa-related advocacy.

The alleged plot was interrupted by a joint federal–state–local law enforcement task force. It may be that some kind of court appearance for the arrestees was held in LA yesterday, but if so I have not seen that detailed.

I urge VC readers to Google the video of the press conference, and today's Guardian summary story. I withhold judgment about any and all facts which may or may not come to light as this case unfolds.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Turtle Island" IS a common term in the alliance between Palestinian Jihadists and North American Indian activists. It's what they call 'occupied' North America.

It's not like they claim to be peaceful, you know. It would be so shocking if a group that regularly says things like "Death to America!" were to plan something violent. [/sarc]

[David Nieporent]

It's not like they claim to be peaceful, you know. It would be so shocking if a group that regularly says things like "Death to America!" were to plan something violent. [/sarc]

What "group" is that, Brett?

[Michael P]

Possibly the self-proclaimed "Turtle Island Liberation Front" that is the subject of this thread?

[David Nieporent]

Does the "Turtle Island Liberation Front" regularly say things like "Death to America!"? Had you ever heard of the TILF before this week? Had anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, yeah, actually.

This specific group isn't huge, so I hadn't previously heard of them, but I was familiar with "Turtle Island" raving; As I said, it's a common theme of the alliance between Palestinian jihadists and violently inclined indigenous rights groups, the ones who actually think they're going to undo the colonization of the Americas.

But if you do a quick look before they finish wiping these guys' internet presence, you can find their Instagram and Facebook pages, and, yeah, it's pretty "death to!" ish.

[David Nieporent]

This specific group isn't huge, so I hadn't previously heard of them,

So then the truthful answer to my question was "No," not "Yeah, actually."

[Brett Bellmore]

You had TWO questions. The answer to the FIRST question, "Does the "Turtle Island Liberation Front" regularly say things like "Death to America!"?" was, "Um, yeah, actually." Searching online you can see that they did have a track record of that sort of thing.

The SECOND was "Had you ever heard of the TILF before this week? Had anyone?"

Me personally, no, though I was familiar with the genre. Anybody? Again, "yeah", they had an online presence prior to this week, the FBI didn't make them up out of whole cloth.

I would not, however, guarantee that their leadership weren't dominated by FBI informants.

[David Nieporent]

Searching online you can see that they did have a track record of that sort of thing.

You cannot. In fact, you cannot find much if any evidence they exist (other than as a fictional organization in a video game).

[Armchair]

What this really was? Mass planned left-wing terrorism. It's back. In 1954, left wing terrorists attacked the US capitol, wounding 5 sitting US Reps. This wasn't granny walking through the building.

Now, they (a different group of LW terrorists) have a mass bombing campaign in the US planned

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-revolutionary-terrorist-liberation-fronts-are-back/

[David Nieporent]

Or maybe it's just a made-up FBI thing, like I've been assured the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer was.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I can't say for sure that the FBI didn't amplify the whole thing, they do a lot of that crap, but I can say that there's plenty of evidence out there that Muslim jihadists see revolutionary indigenous groups in the Americas as a useful idiotally.

[loki13]

" but I can say that there's plenty of evidence out there that Muslim jihadists see revolutionary indigenous groups in the Americas as a useful ----ally."

I am going to say that the odds are approximately 99.9% ... that this is something that Brett has conjured up given his quick googling of the subject (and looking at instagram and facebook) since this happened, and has no bearing on actual "evidence" or any knowledge whatsoever.

The Hamas / Casino link is just a Big Brain away!

And no, whatever your protestations are afterwards, I won't believe it. I don't think you have any special insight about "revolutionary indigenous groups," Brett, and I honestly don't care what you choose to google now to try and say that you do.

Moreover, even the press conference was full of weasel-y words and terms. Is it possible that some morons were planning something stupid? Sure. Is it also possible that they were ... enticed to do so by someone in the government? Possible.
But do I believe anything that this administration says? I mean, if the Bondi DOJ said it was raining, I would assume that they were pissing on my leg.

[David Nieporent]

And by "plenty of evidence" Brett means "Well, it sounded good in my head." (What "revolutionary indigenous groups in the Americas"?)

[Brett Bellmore]

By "Plenty of evidence", I mean news articles in Al Jiazeera.

Palestine’s and Turtle Island’s liberation are entwined

[loki13]

"By "Plenty of evidence", I mean news articles in Al Jiazeera."

Brett and the power of "I need to google something!!!! Real quick!!!!"

LOL.

Let's see.
1. Plenty of evidence = one link. That doesn't actually have ANY statements about any links between American "revolutionary indigenous groups" and Palestinian terrorist groups. NONE. NADA.

2. By "news article," Brett means ... an op-ed.

FFS, Brett. Is it possible for you to just say, "I never heard of this before, and I don't know anything really about it."

[David Nieporent]

1. Plenty of evidence = one link. That doesn't actually have ANY statements about any links between American "revolutionary indigenous groups" and Palestinian terrorist groups. NONE. NADA.

It's worse, in that the op/ed essentially makes the opposite of Brett's point. It laments that Muslims (not "terrorist groups," though) do not see parallels between their own supposed anti-colonial struggle and anti-colonial opposition to the existence of the U.S.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, it's not my fault the indigenous peoples/Islamic Jihad connection comes out of the blue for you.

[loki13]

Lol. Brett's rule of holes.

When in one, first google.

When people make fun of you for that, pretend that you're actually an expert, and everyone else is a moron.

Ignore the fact that you already admitted earlier that you never heard about this until just now. Also ignore the fact that everyone else sees right through what you're doing, since they have a mild curiosity about the world that extends beyond badly googling to find things to support what you want to be true.

Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad."

....apparently.

[David Nieporent]

Brett and the power of "I need to google something!!!! Real quick!!!!"

Unlike Dr. Ed, Brett doesn't intentionally lie. But he believes lots of things based on nothing more than vibes. So when challenged he rushes to google for support, and never reads past the headline, so he doesn't realize his links don't support him.

[bernard11]

An op-ed by a presumably self-described "North African-Egyptian Muslim anarchist interdisciplinary activist-scholar."

[not guilty]

Brett, the Al Jazeera article you link to identifies no "revolutionary indigenous groups in the Americas". Not a single one.

Did you think no one would click on the link?

[Joe_dallas]

Brett derangement syndrome runs deep
NG
Loki
Sacastro
etc

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe still not smart or informed enough to say anything substantive on any subject. (Maybe he can talk about GAAP? Probably not, but at least that's potentially something he might know something about.)

[Michael P]

Boeing's new Air Force One planes are delayed. It's good that President Trump has a contingency plan.

https://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/New_US_presidential_planes_delayed_again_until_2028_999.html

[jb]

Man, whoever signed the contracts for those planes (and just approved the updated contract with Boeing) must be a real idiot.

[Nelson]

Why we would want our President to ride around in a Boeing is beyond me. Their QC is nonexistent, their technology and parts fail repeatedly (and they feel no need to fix it unless they get caught, and their planes keep falling out of the sky.

Boeing is to airplanes what GM, Ford, and Chrysler were to cars in the 80s. Inferior, undependable, and overpriced products with foreign competitors being fended off by a decades-old (and no longer valid) reputation for quality and innovation.

Fuck Boeing and their “Eh, if several hundred people die but we don’t get caught and our stock price doesn’t suffer, we’re good with that” policies. We should buy Airbus to get a better, safer plane for our President.

[Commenter_XY]

Bondi Beach terror murders...Was Iran directly or indirectly responsible for the terror attack? This is the question posed in this Israeli Jerusalem Post editorial.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-880411

It concludes with: Israel has to rely on irrefutable evidence so that there is no doubt of Iranian involvement. But Iran should not misread the situation; if that evidence exists, Israel will act strongly and quickly, and likely much more powerfully than June’s brief conflict. It is a reckoning the Islamic Republic, with all its internal dilemmas, could do without.

No Americans were killed or injured at Bondi Beach, that I am aware of. This will become a hot war very quickly if Iran is involved. I personally hope that Iran was not involved, and this was just two ISIS true believers. We'll know soon enough.

In contrast: Syria is a different case, to me. American military were killed. There must be a decisive response to that. Haven't heard too much from Gen Caine regarding response, either.

[Sarcastr0]

Jeez you really want war with Iran, huh?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I do not want war with Iran. I would much rather trade with them, than fight them. No Americans were killed (or injured) at Bondi Beach. I worry more about getting pulled into a street brawl btwn Israel and Iran, IF caused by Iran's malign actions.

Syria, OTOH, requires a definitive response.

[loki13]

"Syria, OTOH, requires a definitive response."

Serious question, XY. Do you look into things before commenting? Do you know what happened in Syria? Do you know who was involved, what the Syrian government did, and what the US and allied forces have done since then? Are you familiar, at all, with it other than the basics? Do you seek out news sources and well-informed experts on your own?

As of yesterday, this is what I know (I am relating this based on my memory)- the attacker was a lone gunman and member of ISIL (think ISIS), the extremist group in Syria that previously captured Palmyra (among other places) but is now just another terrorist group and opposed to the Syrian government. He had been identified but not yet removed from duty because (apparently) they were trying to ascertain if they could find out any of his connections.

Oops. He might have sensed the end, because he opened fire and killed the troops and an interpreter before being killed by other Syrian forces. The Syrian government has cooperated fully, and have since conducted a full operation in Palmyra that resulted in some deaths along with several arrests of suspected ISIL members.

That's the current status. In other words, it does not appear that there are any foreign ties, and this was an attack of opportunity by an individual who may have suspected the noose was about to tighten.

The issue of foreign entanglement with IS (ISIL, ISIS, you'll see it written in a variety of ways) is ... way too complicated- the current Syrian government is a mortal enemy, but the Assad regime was ... more complicated. But unlike a lot of proxy issues in the Middle East, this one is really difficult to disentangle. They have had support (of different types, at different times) from sources as varied as Turkey and ... Israel (through the PF) since that destabilized the Syrian government. In addition, IS is generally hated, so a lot of governments will accuse other governments of supporting them just to score points even without evidence.

FWIW, Iran is vehemently opposed to IS. But again, Iran supports Hezbollah, and it is said that Hezbollah allows its clandestine weapon smuggling routes to be used by IS despite Iranian opposition.

It's a Russian nesting doll of conflicts and mixed motives.

[Michael P]

In news that should surprise no one, Hunter Biden has been disbarred (again) for conduct unbefitting an attorney. Was it the other-than-honorable discharge for drug use, or his later shenanigans, that eventually caught up with him? Regardless, his father's influence finally stopped being able to protect Hunter from his own behavior.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/hunter-biden-disbarred-connecticut-complaints-gun-tax-convictions-128422080

[Nelson]

Hunter Biden is a scumbag, but who cares? He didn’t matter before and he doesn’t matter now.

[Michael P]

Before addressing vicious murders at both Brown University and Bondi Beach, Sen. Chuck Schumer must first speak on a more important topic: GO BILLS!

https://x.com/AlecLace/status/2000247735988244630

He is no John Fetterman.

[Commenter_XY]

Senator Chuck should seriously consider retirement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm no fan of Schumer, but a distraction from the macabre is not always a bad thing, using one is not always indefensible.

[Bob from Ohio]

I doubt a NYC creature like Chuck Schumer has even been to Buffalo, even when running for senate the first time.

[Estragon]

He has visited all 62 counties in NYS for something like 25 years in a row.

[Armchair]

"D.C. Police Chief Pressured Staff into Manipulating Crime Data to Mislead Public, House Report Finds"

This type of manipulation of statistics is truly vile. In our data driven society, we send resources where the data says. Moreover, we use the data in one city to judge responses and effects in other cities. By manipulating data, you cheat residents out of protection they need. You can't stop the rape if the data "misreports" it and says it wasn't even there.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/d-c-police-chief-pressured-staff-into-manipulating-crime-data-to-mislead-public-house-report-finds/

[Michael P]

Muriel Bowser is reportedly very salty that Republicans don't want to let a corrupt police chief retire with a false patina of honor. In a better city, the police chief would be fired instead.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bowser-blasts-house-report-accusing-dc-police-chief-of-toxic-leadership/ar-AA1SpAvk

[Sarcastr0]

Comer is not exactly a rock solid source.

Law enforcement juking stats isn’t impossible, but whether that happened here is not established by Comer saying he talked to some cops and reached a conclusion.

You’d think you all would learn after all this time. But he says what you want to hear, and on official looking paper. So you go back again and again.

[ThePublius]

Why do you refute this? Do you think it's somehow unbelievable that a police chief could act that way? Do you discount the supposed testimony of the cops that this was happening?

It's much more likely that it was happening than not.

[ThePublius]

"Some rank-and-file officers and detectives have complained for months — in some cases, years — that managers were recording serious crimes as more minor ones to make their police districts appear safer or avoid the ire of top department brass. Some kept lists, documenting cases where they believed a higher-up improperly classified a crime as a lesser offense. One such tally, obtained by The Washington Post, lists more than 150 instances since March 2024 where staff in a Southeast D.C. police district believed offenses were, at least initially, inappropriately classified."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/12/08/dc-police-chief-pamela-smith-stepping-down/

[Commenter_XY]

Smith will have had the job 18 months by EOY. She did such a spectacular job, that she is leaving. Or something like that. 😉

[Jerry B.]

"...leaving to spend more time with my family."

Isn't that the usual excuse when you're caught red-handed?

[bernard11]

National Review reports on statements from Jim Comer, and you believe every word of it.

Look, maybe this happened or maybe not, but Comer has a definite history of completely misrepresenting (i.e, lying about) what witnesses to his hearings said.

[Nelson]

You, a Trump supporter, are bemoaning the manipulation of data and condemning those who do it? Your lack of self-awareness is mindboggling.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news, it seems like the Golden State's Golden Boy is getting another Golden Shower due to Valero's decision to shutter its Benicia refinery in April 2026 at a cost to them of $1.1 billion.
This follows Phillips 66 to close their refinery by the end of this year.

[Michael P]

Will these companies still bother refining fuel to California's eccentric standards? Declining to do that might accelerate California's efforts to reach zero carbon.

[Nelson]

Sure, for-profit companies often choose to ignore the largest single market in the country. Clearly you never ran a business.

[jay.tee]

Clearly you never ran a business

Clearly, you never ran a business yourself. It doesn’t matter how large the market is if you can’t profit by serving it.

[Nelson]

I have not only run a business, I co-founded one, built it over years, and then sold my position and retired in my 40s. So please, tell me again about what I have and have not done.

It isn’t unprofitable to sell gas in California, which is the false basis of your rebuttal. It is *less* profitable, but if there is money to be made someone will make it.

And because math works, selling gas for half the profit in California vs. selling gas in Wyoming for twice as much will make you a lot, lot more money. As long as the juice is worth the squeeze, someone will make orange juice.

[Commenter_XY]

There goes ~8% of CA's in-state supply of gasoline.

When supply is constrained, prices rise. Get ready, CA. You're going to get what you voted for. 🙂

[ThePublius]

Among the aspects of California idiocy here is that when they import so much California-compliant gasoline carried for 30 to 40 days in tankers, the carbon footprint of those tankers probably outweighs the carbon savings of the fuel they haul.

[jb]

I wanted to learn about this more, and found this article pretty interesting:

https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2025/08/18/californias-refinery-closure-drama/

(Note the date of the article to realize that Bumble's revelation is hardly "news".)

There's some discussion about the merits of the fuel blend and whether it's still needed at this point, but if you look at pictures of the smog in LA in the 80s versus today you might have a hard time making the case to the voters that they were a mistake in the meantime.

To address a couple other points above:

1) It seems like California's demand for gasoline is at this point in steady decline so you'd expect refinery capacity to decline with time as well.
2) Tanker ships are pretty efficient as far as transportation goes; I'd be skeptical that shipping gas has a meaningful impact on its overall carbon footprint. But that's not the main rationale for California's fuel blend requirements in any case.

[Mr. Bumble]

"1) It seems like California's demand for gasoline is at this point in steady decline so you'd expect refinery capacity to decline with time as well."

"These two latest refinery closures would reduce the total production in California faster than in-state consumption will plausibly decline. If that happened, and nothing else changed, the result would be a severe gasoline shortage and likely an unprecedented price increase." from your link

[jb]

Sure, and then it goes on to list all of the things that are more likely to happen than "nothing else changed".

I wasn't trying to argue that the refinery capacity reduction was in lockstep with reduction for demand, but I do think it's important to understand that it should be expected to see capacity decrease over time.

[apedad]

"On Sunday, Trump revisited the $18 trillion claim while speaking to reporters at the White House. 'Because of the tariffs, we've taken in more than 18—think of this—more than $18 trillion. There's never been anything like it,' Trump said. Moments later, he repeated the claim, stating that 'we took in more than $18 trillion in 10 months.'"

Fuck, Trump is morphing into Dr. Evil.

[Michael P]

Is that like how Joe Biden claimed in 2020 that 120 million Americans died from COVID and 150 million died from gun violence?

It's too bad that Democrats decided to nominate Dr. Stupid after those remarks.

[apedad]

"In both cases, Biden or his staff acknowledged he intended to say thousands, not millions.

As Biden noted a moment after referencing millions of COVID deaths the current death toll remains in the thousands. As of June 25, 2020 when he made this statement, the death toll was more than 119,000, according to the John Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center dashboard.

On the gun violence claim, a member of Biden’s campaign said Biden meant to say 150,000 people. Biden has previously referenced that stat correctly." (PolitiFact)

I won't wait for the Trump correction.

[Michael P]

Of course you won't. Gotta keep that outrage engine running on high.

[apedad]

No, it's because the Buffoon in Chief will be making another inane comment any moment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama could never have met your standard, nor out up with a similar level of abuse.

[Michael P]

That's okay, Obama visited 57 states even before getting elected.

[bernard11]

Wow. What an idiotic response.

[Josh R]

Trump's claim isn't a slip of the tongue. The $18 trillion is the promised future investments other countries have made according to Trump (*). The nuances of whether those investments will be made, whether they were tied to tariffs, and what impact the investments will have? Those are details Trump glosses over.

And, the correct figure is likely about $10 trillion.

[Nelson]

Don’t forget that Trump doesn’t differentiate between previously planned investments and new “investments”. In some cases, the “investment” represents a decrease for actual anticipated expenditures. Just like the Chinese soybean “deal” that forced China to promise to buy half of the soybeans that they were in April when Trump’s tariff idiocy caused then to stop buying US soybeans.

In MAGAworld, reducing Chinese purchases of soybeans by half is called “winning”. Which explains why Trump constantly went bankrupt as a businessman.

[SRG2]

Your "whataboutism" is evidently pathological.

[Michael P]

As usual, people whining about whataboutism do nothing more than confess to hypocrisy.

[SRG2]

On occasion yes, but it is no defence of a vile POS like Trump that some of the people who criticise him are hypocrites and only a cretinous cultist would think otherwise.

Indeed, a response that accuses someone else of hypocrisy but that does not address the original criticism is a concession of the legitimacy of the criticism, while the responder shows he lacks the guts to admit that legitimacy.

You're unable to defend Trump here, you can't accept any criticism of your Dear Leader, and so you "whatabout".

[David Nieporent]

As usual, Michael P is too stupid to understand either the concepts of whataboutism (though he's capable of using it) or hypocrisy.

[bernard11]

As usual, Trump cultists have no response to his insanity.

[Nelson]

“ As usual, people whining about whataboutism do nothing more than confess to hypocrisy.”

For the live of God, Michael. Whataboutism isn’t a difficult concept to grasp. Why do you keep failing at simple things?

[David Nieporent]

Whatabout whatabout whatabout.

No, it's not like that at all.

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order designating the street drug fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.

"The manufacture and distribution of fentanyl, primarily performed by organized criminal networks, threatens our national security and fuels lawlessness in our hemisphere and at our borders," the order declared.

During an event in the Oval Office, Trump said the carnage fentanyl has caused in American families is worse than U.S. deaths in many wars.

"Two to three hundred thousand people die every year, that we know of, so we're formally classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction," Trump said.

In fact, Trump's numbers are wildly inflated. According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl killed roughly 48 thousand people in the U-S last year - a 27 percent drop from the year before.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/15/nx-s1-5645149/wmd-fentanyl-trump-cartels

[Malika la Maize]

Combining the dumbest part of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, is that all? Just 48,000. /s

[Michael P]

And 65,000 the year before.

Figure 4 at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db522.htm shows that we have a huge problem with fentanyl-class drugs.

[SRG2]

And we have a huge problem with alcohol and tobacco - far more serious than fentanyl.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's early but go have a fine cigar and a single malt and chill.

[Michael P]

If you ignore the fraction of people using those substances and how long they have used them for, maybe "more serious" makes sense, but I don't think that is a good basis for comparison.

Annual deaths per user are far, far higher for synthetic opioids than for alcohol or tobacco, and it gets even more uneven if you consider the duration of addiction or use.

[SRG2]

You lot were arguing on the basis of actual numbers. How many fentanyl deaths were of people who did not voluntarily assume the risk?

And meanwhile, what is the accepted medical usage of tobacco? Or ethyl alcohol?

[Michael P]

Do you count addiction as voluntary?

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make with that question, though: Deaths from alcohol and tobacco are, if anything, more voluntary than from opioids. Nobody gets prescribed alcohol or tobacco to recover from some other injury or illness.

[Nelson]

“ Do you count addiction as voluntary?”

Yes. They chose to take drugs in the first place, knowing addiction was a very real possibility. The fact that it happened is their fault, no one else’s.

[David Nieporent]

They also choose to continue taking drugs after becoming addicted. We know that this is a choice because millions of people do choose to stop. (There are a few drugs — alcohol being one — where going the proverbial 'cold turkey' can actually be fatal, but that's only in rare cases and it's mostly just very unpleasant to do so. And of course even in the former cases one can still quit drinking; one just can't do it suddenly.)

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not giving up the 19th hole, SRG.

[SRG2]

So? Many people still take cocaine.

"My drugs of choice are good. Yours are bad".

[Mr. Bumble]

A with immigrants; some are legal and some are illegal.

[SRG2]

Completely different, but you know that - you just lack the self-control to avoid posting something stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

Piss off fuckwit (H/T you).
Legal and illegal have the same meaning in any context.

[SRG2]

Imitation is the sincerest, etc etc 🙂

Same meaning but not the same rationale nor moral underpinning.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the casual, 'it is only 48,000' attitude that Queenie and her fellow travelers have that bothers me. Those 48K were Americans.

If we had a border conflict that 'only' cost 48K lives annually, how would this country react? Not the same.

Now we have a POTUS who a) gives a shit about those 48K Americans, and b) is doing something about it (killing drug smugglers, working with CHN to stop precursors, etc). But Queenie and her fellow travelers are bigly worried about the drug dealers and drug smugglers getting snuffed out in intl waters.

[SRG2]

And yet he pardons major drug smugglers.

And you're so hilariously stupid you think that Trump gives a shit about those 48,000 or indeed pretty much anyone other than himself.

[loki13]

"It is the casual, 'it is only 48,000' attitude that Queenie and her fellow travelers have that bothers me. Those 48K were Americans.

If we had a border conflict that 'only' cost 48K lives annually, how would this country react? Not the same."

WOOSH. Way to miss the point. If, as you say, 48k lives matter, and Trump really really really cares ... then why not tell the truth?

For that matter, if every boat he blows up saves 25k lives, then he would have already solved the problem!

But you see, all of this? THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Because you don't actually care about ... the facts.

To review-
Trump lies about it being a weapon of mass destruction (it isn't, even if he could magically make it so- what, can a Democratic President say "Hamburgers are a WMD, look at you, fattie.").

Trump lies about the numbers to make it sound worse than it is.

BUT WHY?

Well, look at what you say at the end. He does this so you don't have to worry about the murder of people.

But wait.... he lies about that, too. Because he's not going after fentanyl, is he? He lied about that as well! He's blowing up, at best, boats carrying COCAINE, not fentanyl (see that neat trick he pulled on you) ... except when it might be fish.

And the boats that aren't carrying cocaine? They also aren't going to America. They are going to other boats or islands, to be trans-shipped to Europe.

To recap-
XY doesn't care about any of the actual facts. About any of it. XY will believe the BS numbers about one drug and criticizes people who quote "facts," because it justifies XY enjoying senseless murder to prevent that drug from reaching America, except ... it doesn't, but XY doesn't care, because XY doesn't care about those facts as well.

See how that works? It's rinse, repeat. It's like ... well, remember trying to explain to you what was actually going on with Abrego Garcia, and pointing you to the actual court documents and facts, and you kept saying, "But HEZ AN MS-13 GANGBANGER CHILD PORNIE GUY ABUSER," and I kept saying ... those aren't the actual facts.

Facts matter. Even the ones that don't agree with ur feelz.

[Nelson]

“ Those 48K were Americans.”

Who chose to take drugs.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Now we have a POTUS who a) gives a shit about those 48K Americans...."

As I've noted many times, a cult member like XY doesn't actually believe any of this drivel. To him, what's important is Trump's performance of "caring" for his (XY's) viewing pleasure.

So Trump blows-up some small boat in the Caribbean. It may be drug smugglers or just another lie, like all those brown-skinned people sent to a gulag in Central America as members of Tren de Aragua. Do you think XY cared when those gang claims proved false? Of course not. XY was entertained by seeing those people herded off in chains. It was a good performance of "caring" and he (XY) was a satisfied consumer when the show was over.

The reality of Trump's stunts and bullshit is completely irrelevant to someone like XY. He's only in it for the show. It's like asking someone at a pro wrestling match to stop hissing at the "villain" and worry over it being a complete fraud.

[bernard11]

So. Trump says two or three hundred thousand, and Malika points out the actual figure was 48,000.

And on this basis you excuse and defend Trump's lie. Worse than cultism, this is outright worship. How do you breathe with your head where it is?

[Nelson]

“ Oh, is that all? Just 48,000. /s”

48,000 people who chose, for themselves, to take drugs. The willingness of MAGAworld to redefine actual words to mean something completely unrelated is nuts.

Will he name cars weapons of mass destruction next?

[SRG2]

Alcohol and tobacco are also WMDs, therefore.

[Nelson]

And cars.

[Dr. Ed 2]

48 thousand versus 3 thousand on Sept 11th.

[Krayt]

And 2100 on December 7, 1941. The next day, FDR stood before Congress and asked for a declaration of war.

Who knew he could just do it!

[SRG2]

480,000 tobacco deaths and 170,000 alcohol deaths. Where's your concern here?

[ThePublius]

O.K., so you've made maybe 7 posts on this topic. What's your point? Are you saying we should leave the fentanyl smugglers alone? Are you saying we should outlaw alcohol and tobacco?

Do you not appreciate the difference between alcohol, tobacco, and fentanyl?

One of the great dangers of fentanyl is that it is disguised in pills that mimic other drugs and people don't know what they are taking, and die. Almost immediately.

Alcohol and tobacco, like it or not, are integral to our culture in many ways. And, the bad effects are mostly long term use, not immediate, except in cases of usually young people overdoing the booze and driving.

[Nelson]

“ Do you not appreciate the difference between alcohol, tobacco, and fentanyl?”

They are all drugs that people choose to take, regardless of the fact that it may kill them.

There is no conceptual difference between tobacco, alcohol, and all the various other drugs. Only a difference in effect.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, there is literally no such thing as the president "designating ___ as a weapon of mass destruction." Sure, Trump — or any president — can announce whatever he wants. But such an announcement has no legal effect unless Congress has delegated authority to the president to do that thing. And the effect, if Congress has done so, is whatever Congress has set it to be.

The King Trump people have this weird idea that a president can issue a proclamation or "executive order" and that this makes law. It does not. (I had a debate with someone about six months ago when they said that English was the official language of the U.S. I pointed out that it was not, that we had no official language, And they attempted to rebut this by pointing to a proclamation by Trump that English was our official language.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"For the courts are without authority to repress evil save as the law has proscribed it and then only according to law."

Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236 (1943)

[Michael P]

This seems to match what the Albanese government is doing: https://x.com/sunnyright/status/2000565051170890064

“We’ll do anything to keep Australians safe”
“So you’ll monitor mosques for radicalism?”
“No, too far”
“You’ll restrict immigration?”
“No, too far”
“You’ll take more rights from law-abiding Australians?”
“Yes, perfect.”

[apedad]

Darn, you MAGAees are going to have to get your chicken sandwiches somewhere else now.
-------

Chick-Fil-A Doubles Down on Wokeness After Getting Backlash for Gay ‘Marriage’ Stunt

According to a disappointing report from The Washington Stand, the chicken restaurant isn’t just supporting causes that fly contrary to those Christian, conservative beliefs — but they’re doubling down on them, customer complaints be damned.

If you’ll recall, Chick-fil-A came under fire earlier this month when a franchise location in Orem, Utah, took to to celebrate a gay marriage.

And they also doubled down on DEI in what appears to be a pre-written response:

“Thank you for contacting Chick-fil-A CARES,

“Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Chick-fil-A, Inc. is committed to being Better at Together by embedding Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) in everything we do. We strive to provide a welcoming and inclusive place for everyone. We do this by focusing on Chick-fil-A’s four Corporate Social Responsibility pillars: Caring for People, Caring for our Communities, Caring for Others through our Food, and Caring for our Planet.”

https://www.conservativenewsdaily.net/breaking-news/chick-fil-a-doubles-down-on-wokeness-after-getting-backlash-for-gay-marriage-stunt/

[Bwaaah]

Chick-Fil-A? Aren't they one of those Christian companies?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like WalMart, companies change when their founders retire.

[Nelson]

Wal-mart sold out their Made In America “principle” while Sam Walton was still running things and WELL before he no longer influenced the company.

I mean for God’s sake, the Waltons STILL have a hand in policy there.

[Michael P]

The manufactured outrage here seems to be over one franchised location, not a company-owned store.

[Bwaaah]

Sure enough, apedad misleadingly presents an exception as the rule.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The quoted response didn't come from corporate?

[apedad]

Be sure to pass your concern to the ultra conservative Conservative News Daily and The Washington Stand since they're the ones reporting the story.

[Bwaaah]

No. You reported it, misleadingly.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a fundamental problem for all companies: The management schools have gone woke, so the only way to reliably hire non-woke management is to brew your own.

Kinda hard for a fast growing company to do that.

[grb]

Yep. Saying you're going to treat all people with respect and dignity is definitely a problem with today's Right. Hell, it makes their very heads explode, they're so furious at the very thought!

After all, as long as you set aside that Jesus fellah, what could be less Christian than saying you care for all people and communities? If you ask me, it's talk like that got that Jesus fellah in such a mess. Today's Christians are much better off not listening to a troublemaker like that.

[Nelson]

“ Kinda hard for a fast growing company to do that.”

Chick-fil-A has been around for decades. If they haven’t been able to foster their preferred corporate management culture, that isn’t the fault of business schools with their Illuminati plans to make the whole world “woke”. It’s the fault of Chick-fil-A.

And if they have fostered the management culture they prefer, it’s even worse for your argument.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's living the: "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

[bernard11]

Sounds like they are moving in that direction.

[hobie]

"Caring for Others through our Food"

This flies in the face of the principles of Masterpiece. Keep hungry gays from eating.

[ReaderY]

In President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pullitzer Prize board, the defendants have requested broad discovery orders. For example, they claim that Mr. Trump, by claiming to be wealthy and to have been hurt financially, has put his wealth at issue. Accordingly, they are asking for detailed financial records including tax returns to ascertain Trump’s actual wealth. As additional examples, they are asking for a complete medical history, as well as to depose him personally on a long list of issues.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26377795/pulitzer.pdf

[ReaderY]

The defendants had previously moved to postpone the lawsuit until after Mr. Trump had left the White House. Trump’s lawyers successfully opposed postponement. They defeated the Pullitzer Board’s appeal.

This prior action now seems strategic. If Mr. Trump’s lawyers attempt to argue that the discovery request should be narrowed because it is too burdensome for a sitting President, I suspect the defendants’ lawyers will be able to argue that judicial estoppel settles this issue and Mr. Trump cannot now object to receiving what he previously asked for and won the right to have.

[loki13]

" I suspect the defendants’ lawyers will be able to argue that judicial estoppel settles this issue and Mr. Trump cannot now object to receiving what he previously asked for and won the right to have."

Just a quick point-

Judicial estoppel requires that the position is maintained successfully in a prior (different) proceeding. This is the same proceeding, so judicial estoppel cannot apply.

I don't know about this case and I'm too lazy to look it up. If a stay was granted and there was an appeal of the stay, and the stay was overturned and the reasoning was something like, "The defendant will not be unfairly prejudiced because the President must fully comply with all applicable discovery" then that would be a "law of the case" issue. And Trump might regret winning that appeal.

If, on the other hand, it was simply motion practice and a denial of the stay on those grounds ... then it goes to normal discovery rules. Depending on the issue, they may have more or less success with some discovery requests (especially if it appears that they are trying to create burdensome discovery), but I also do not think that the trial judge will be happy with a party that contests a stay on one ground and flips their position to refuse to engage in discovery- but if the argument is just "burdensome," then it would be a loser argument if they specifically articulated that it would not be.

IMO, etc.

[hobie]

I'm confused. Which of the two parties is doing the lawfare?

[OpinionsVary]

More like judicial counter battery fire.

[Nelson]

Trump, as usual. He’s done it ever since he inherited half a billion dollars from his father.

[Michael P]

Wow, who knew fancy-pants reporters were so ignorant that they would confuse wealth with income? (I mean, besides anyone who has been paying attention.)

[ReaderY]

Mr. Trump is claiming his income primarily comes not from a salary but from returns on assets. He claims the 2018 Pullitzer Prize reduced the value of his assets and the returns he could earn on them by making people not want to stay at his hotels etc. So what are these assets, and what returns is he earning on them? In particular, what assets did he own and what returns was he earning on them before and after the 2018 Pullitzer Prize was announced?

Claims have to be proven by evidence. All relevant evidence is subject to discovery. So if a plaintiff makes a claim, the defense gets to discover anything related to it.

Nothing fancy here.

[Michael P]

Have you ever had passive income? The tax documents my wife and I get (from sources like the places we have IRAs) show income, not account balances. That's what goes into my income tax return, not a list of assets or their market values: a tax return does not indicate wealth -- and omits many changes to it.

[ReaderY]

The complaint says at paragraph 144 that Trump’s “reputation, profession, and business” have been damaged.

So the complaint isn’t limited to Trimp’s income, or even his personal wealth. The much broader term “business” would appear to include every business entity and asset he has an interest in. Evidence related to loss (or lack thereof) for every and any of them would appear to be, at least potentially, fair game. They are asking for his tax returns, but they are also asking for his business records.

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Trump-v-Pulitzers-Complaint.pdf

[hobie]

One of you thin-skinned, mask-hating SOB's must have turned me in to Reason or Volokh or something, because this morning I couldn't make comments. So I had to make a new account just to tell you thin-skinned, mask-hating SOB's that you narced on me.

Censorship! Amirite?

[Mr. Bumble]

Paranoia?
Your still here and with the same screen name.

[hobie]

Yeah. Reason's defenses are shit. Same user name, different email = new account

[Bwaaah]

That's some serious censorship.

Welcome back, hobie. I must've missed the benefit of one less moment of you.

[hobie]

This fucking place would just be a MAGA echo chamber without people like me

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your still here and with the same screen name."

He was muted yesterday and today he is not.

Well, until now.

[hobie]

It's a new account, Bob. You'll have to mute me again

[ThePublius]

Don't immediately assume it was something like that. Did you try deleting your cache before you created a new account? I had that same problem once, and it was cache related.

[hobie]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on that should this second account get pinched

[DDHarriman]

This is what a Deep State/Color Revolution coup looks like:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/11/20/exclusive_how_trumps_own_appointees_aided_russiagate_plot_against_him_1148719.html

[David Nieporent]

LOL. Now they want to investigate the people who investigated the people who investigated Trump. At some point the loons are going to have to give it up and admit that Trump was indeed assisted by Russia in the 2016 election, as confirmed by every single investigation.

[ThePublius]

So you're asserting that the Russian collusion narrative is true?

[hobie]

Duh

[David Nieporent]

Both the nonpartisan Mueller investigation and the bipartisan (but Republican led) SSCI investigation found that Russia attempted to sway the election to Trump, and that Trump knew of and welcomed these efforts. They did not find explicit evidence that there was a quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Russia.

[ThePublius]

There was no collusion. If someone wants you to win, why not welcome that? And, I don't see how they wanted Trump.

[grb]

ThePublius : "And, I don't see how they wanted Trump."

Are you blind? Just his anti-NATO stance alone would justify Putin wanting Trump in power. There are more examples like that but I'll just add some general observations: Russia frequently uses petty mischief to humiliate western democracies and discredit their open government. Having a sleazy huckster buffoon as U.S. President is the ultimate humiliation.

Also, who wouldn't want their country's primary foe to be led by an addled incompetent halfwit?

Bonus Point: Mueller found the Russians hacked Clinton-friend John Podesta and stole a massive trove of email. They then sat on their haul for over five months. So when did they finally begin to leak what they'd taken? Mueller established it started less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story first appeared in the media, rocking the Trump Campaign back on its heels.

Their boy was in trouble. They rushed to help.

[ThePublius]

No, I am not blind, thank you.

And I don't think that Trump is a "sleazy huckster buffoon," or an "addled incompetent halfwit." (I think both of those descriptions apply to Biden, though.)

I would think Russia would want a corrupt, easily bought pol like Hillary.

[David Nieporent]

Halfwit overestimates Trump, but if you don't think he's those things then you aren't thinking at all.

[ThePublius]

So you have to resort to name calling? That's the best you have?

You must admit, at least half the country supported Trump. I'm not endorsing everything he does or says, but I support many of his policies and actions. You don't. Fine.

[David Nieporent]

You must admit, at least half the country supported Trump.

I must not, because it's not true. Trump has never commanded the support of "at least half the country." (Yeah, I know, actually he was so popular that he won every state including California in 2020, but it was stolen from him.)

I'm not endorsing everything he does or says, but I support many of his policies and actions. You don't. Fine.

No, you missed the point. The comment wasn't about his policies or actions. It was about Trump. One could support many of his policies (you are of course correct that I don't) and still admit that he is in fact — and always has been, from before he entered politics until now — a sleazy huckster buffoon and an addled incompetent halfwit. The only two things he has ever proven himself competent at was picking the right father and being a con man.

[grb]

The Publius : "I would think Russia would want a corrupt, easily bought pol like Hillary."

"So you have to resort to name calling", says The Publius moments after the quote above. There's nothing more comical in this forum than rightwingers who spew venom one moment, then speak pieties on proper discourse the next.

But that's the very smallest of potatoes! Because its well beyond comical to see a Trump Cult Disciple call another politician "corrupt" and "easily bought".

The amount of blind obliviousness to do that is off the meter. Hell, it breaks the meter altogether!

[ThePublius]

There's a big difference between criticizing a public figure and insulting a fellow correspondent in this forum.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, how did you get promoted to correspondent?

[DDHarriman]

"Anti-NATO stance" = demand increase their defense spending = Russia's secret wish!!

lmao

[DDHarriman]

>Mueller established it started less than one hour after the Access Hollywood story first appeared in the media, rocking the Trump Campaign back on its heels.

SCENE:

Trump: "Oh my god on http://www.accesshollywood.com there's a new anti-Trump story, and it was just published!".
Trump reaches over, dials + then pauses slowly then taps 7-I-L-U-V-P-U-T-I-N on his phone.
(a grumpy, grizzly voice): "Vat now, babushka?"
Trump: "A story was just published on http://www.accesshollywood.com, it's a big website with atleast 100 visitors a day, and it's bad. Baaaaddd I say!"
Heard in the background in a thick Russian accent: "RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!! ACCESS HOLLYWOOD.... RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!!"

All within the first 60 minutes of the story being published!!!

lol

[David Nieporent]

One wonders whether Voltage! is just doing a bit here, or whether he actually thinks that the Access Hollywood tapes were reported on some hypothetical Access Hollywood website, rather than in some obscure outlet called the Washington Post.

[hobie]

Helsinki, 2018. Putin admitted helping Trump to win.

[David Nieporent]

If someone wants you to win, why not welcome that?

If I was running for office and I found out that Hitler/Trump/Putin/Kim Jong Un/David Duke/etc. wanted me to win, I would rethink my life choices from back to early childhood to the present.

[ThePublius]

Well, good for you. That's you. But consider that with only two candidates, people are going to line up on either side for myriad reasons.

[not guilty]

I recall that in the 1980 presidential election the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Ronald Reagan who, to his credit, repudiated the endorsement.

It was not a Democrat, however, who said, "Ronald Reagan can't repudiate the Klan without repudiating the entire Republican platform." That was Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Many of us remember that hobie also supported Trump for the Republican nomination.

[jb]

Which do you think is more likely: that there's some legitimate concerns around Russia's assistance of Trump's 2016 victory, or that Trump's hand-picked folks who he hired to try to discredit the initial investigation were actually part of the conspiracy to make him look bad? You need to get into Inception levels of "must go deeper" to try to hold onto the conspiracy theory at this point, and honestly even that movie didn't make any sense.

[Nelson]

“ So you're asserting that the Russian collusion narrative is true?”

I’m believe Trump’s campaign manager went to prison for being a Russian asset. Or perhaps for financial crimes related to his payoffs by Russia? It’s too much work to find out, but Paul Manafort was a Russian asset at the same time he was Trump’s campaign manager.

Other than that …

[JoeFromtheBronx]

At some point the loons are going to have to give it up and admit that Trump was indeed assisted by Russia in the 2016 election, as confirmed by every single investigation.

People around here and elsewhere were fine with that after 2016.

That includes Russian bots on Facebook and elsewhere, as spelled out in the Mueller Report.

The general sentiment was that they were happy Russia helped Trump. After all, why should they be upset that Russia helped their guy? Push comes to shove, that is what people will say again.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yup, some posts/ads on Facebook turned the election!

Did these bots steal Hillary's Wisconsin map?

[David Nieporent]

No; they stole DNC and campaign emails.

[Bob from Ohio]

A big issue for voters I'm sure.

[Sarcastr0]

Minimize, get called out, switch goalposts from your comment being accurate to the issue it didn't matter in the election.

The DoJ seems to disagree with you that it matters, anyhow.

[Bob from Ohio]

All my comments minimize the Russia hoax. 8 years ago, yesterday, today, tomorrow, 8 years from now.

Its just cope because your side still cannot believe Trump just won. Conspiracy thinking is not confined to the right, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

You got called out, and pivoted to nothing matters.

And now you're doing a 'you're all in bad faith! You just want to persecute Trump for winning!' push.

Good lord man. You used to suck in novel and outrageous ways. Now you're tediously mouthing MAGA shibboleths.

[Bob from Ohio]

No part of the Russian hoax mattered in the election. Not facebook, not stolen e-mails, not nothing.

You anointed a bad candidate who was so sure she'd crush the buffoon running against her she neglected to campaign properly, skipping Michigan and Wisconsin to roll up big margins in California for "mandate" reasons.

Then its been 9 years of indignation that Trump won. Blaming some minor Russian tomfoolery for the screw up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

When you think about it, the kind of morons who fell for or were convinced by the laziest Russian disinformation and propaganda were the kind of morons to vote for Trump in the first place. So their efforts probably didn’t matter. To me, Russia interference wasn’t a big deal because it helped Trump win, it’s a big deal because of how accurately they measured the idiocy of the American public.

[hobie]

Russian Shared Values Visa
https://russianresidency.com/
https://www.shared-values-visa.com/

This looks like a MAGA paradise.

- Russia is almost completely neegro-free
- Only accepting applicants from the whitest countries
- Confederate-style monuments all over the fucking place
- LGBT and Lib organizations designated as terrorists
- Blows the hell out of civilian targets
- Hates Jews
- Run by oligarchs and dictators
- Hates Ukraine
- People with disfavored views disappear all the time
- White Heterosexual Christianity Nationalism practically a sacrament
- Did I mention the part about the neegroes?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Nick Reiner was said to be 'acting crazy' and 'running around' Conan O'Brien's Christmas bash 'asking people if they're famous' on Saturday night."

Rob and Michele Reiner would be alive today if they hadn't been rich, if the hadn't lived in a $1.3M mansion.

BECAUSE they were rich, the cops didn't get involved, the socialist workers didn't get involved, they were able to keep all of this private. Send him to rehab 17 times, enable his addictions and behavior.

If they hadn't been rich and famous, Nick would have had mental illness labels stapled to him -- Bipolar, skitz, maybe a few more -- maybe the right ones, maybe the wrong ones, but it wouldn't just "oh, he has a drug problem, let's sing Kumbyah."

[ThePublius]

Where did you get the '1.3M mansion' thing? Reiner's Brentwood home is worth about $10M.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15387727/Rob-Reiner-scared-son-Nick-Conan-party-double-murder.html

They fixed it -- they are saying $13.5M now which makes more sense.

[jb]

Also, where is a $1.3M house a mansion these days? Certainly not LA, where the median home price is now $1.1M.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cleveland, $40,000 mansion according to homie.

[jb]

Would make so much sense if it was Bob from Ohio, but this is Dr. Ed failing to apply common sense to the nonsense that he posts.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Rob and Michele Reiner would be alive today if they hadn't been rich"

Why bother with stuff this lame? There are endless stories about mentally ill children and family tragedies that sometimes occur as a result. The common thread isn't money, but parents desperate to ignore troubling evidence or hope things are getting better. All of which deserves our sympathy, not a cheap-shot snide comment.

[loki13]

The "read between the lines," Order of the Day, courtesy of the judge in the Richman litigation!

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71982634/26/richman-v-united-states/

Background- this is Dan Richman demanding the the DOJ return the documents that they took from him years ago. Also? The DOJ kept screwing up basic procedural things (filings, etc.) because ... they are a flaming dumpster.

Anyway, after the Judge entered an order requiring that they "return" the documents (a little more complicated, but that's the gist) the DOJ filed an 11th hour motion requesting an extension of time and whining about all these issues that they needed "clarified" by the judge.

The Order came out today. It is a marvel of restraint, all things considered. I imagine that the judge was gritting her teeth while writing it; especially the part about the Attorney General certification. But really ... all of it.

The Trump DOJ- we now have the presumption of irregularity.

[David Nieporent]

the DOJ filed an 11th hour motion requesting an extension of time

LOL. We usually use that term metaphorically. Not here:

The Government's [22] Motion, which was filed approximately one hour before the deadline

[apedad]

" . . . we now have the presumption of irregularity."

You spelled incompetence wrong.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“I’ve known Bob Rumson for years, and I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he can’t sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only, making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it."

President Andrew Shepherd speaking about his opponent in The American President (directed by Rob Reiner).

[Bob from Ohio]

Good fantasy flick.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can't fake good children.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I overall enjoyed the musical take on The Nativity Story entitled Journey to Bethlehem with Antonio Banderas as King Herod.

The story developed over time (non-canonical books helped influence multiple traditional motifs that many think of as part of the story), so changing stuff is par for the course. It's helpful to understand the original context. But stories change over time.

"Good to be King," sung by King Herod (at that point, getting old and more and more unhinged) hits a bit close to the home.

It's good to be king
And have the absolute authority
All the attributes of divinity
I'm a religion
Look how they all worship me

Don't have to be good
To be a good king
Just gotta look
Like you've got sympathy
Then keep 'em rooked and suffering
To maximize your profiting

Look how the peasants work down to the bone
As I sit up high on my velvety throne
Pulling the strings on the people below
It's so stinking good to be king

Mine is the kingdom
Mine is the power
Mine is the glory
Forever
More

Kiss the ring, babies, kiss the ring
Everybody hates me
Ha, ha, ha!

It's good to be king
And be the one who screams
"Off with his head!"
Or be the one who's deemed
Savior instead
It's delicious
To watch a man begging for his death

I put in a knife and then give it a twist
A smile opens up on my sinister lips
The joy of the crown is too much to resist
It's so stinking good to be king
(I just love it!)

Mine is the kingdom
Mine is the power
Mine is the glory, forever more
Forever more
Forever more

It's so stinking good to be king!

I guess some people are more concerned about being liked.

[loki13]

The Trump '24 Election Theme

You say
The price of my love’s not a price that you’re willing to pay.
You cry
In your beer because of the not-white woman you fear when the end is nigh.

Why so sad?
Remember we made an arrangement when I went away.
I would post, and you'd get mad.
Remember, despite those J6 jail terms, I’m your man.

I'll be back.
Soon you’ll see.
You’ll remember you belong to me.
I’ll be back.
Time will tell.
You love to buy the lies I sell.

My fortune will rise.
America can fall.
But we can always shitpost through it all,
And when push
Comes to shove,
I will send a fully armed battalion
To remind my domestic enemies of my love!

Da da da dat da dat da da da da ya da
Da da dat dat da ya da!
Da da da dat da dat da da da da ya da,
Da da dat dat da ya...

You say my corruption is draining and you can’t go on.
You’ll be the one complaining when I am gone...
And no, don’t change the subject,
Cuz you’re my favorite subject,
My gullible, submissive subject,
My loyal, royal subject,
Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever...

You’ll be back.
Like before,
I will break this country to win the war
Give me your love,
Give me your praise,
I'll take the Saudi money 'til my dying days.

When I'm gone
You'll be sad
Who else can make the libtards so mad?
Cuz when push
Comes to shove,
ICE will kill your friends and family to remind you of my love!

[M L]

Any good Christmas gift ideas?

This book on birthright citizenship looks good! https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1641772352/reasonmagazinea-20/

[grb]

It's a difficult choice! You can buy it now at full price but still having the illusion of relevance. Or you can wait until the Supreme Court sends the book to the remainder pile and get it at a steep discount.

Which do you choose, ML?

[DDHarriman]

https://wisepathbooks.com/products/who-is-my-neighbor-2nd-ed

This is a good book.

[SRG2]

Best bargain in books: The Bertrand Russell Signature Classics (14-Volume Box Set).

$0.99 for Kindle.

[Michael P]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/15/us/politics/pelosi-stock-trading-ban.html

Pelosi is retiring, so now it can be said: "Pelosi Resisted Stock-Trading Ban as Wealth Grew, Fueling Suspicion"

[jb]

This has been said by lots of people for a long time. Including Democrats: most notably AOC.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-pelosi-no-reason-members-congress-trade-individual-stock-2021-12

[grb]

Michael P : "... so now it can be said"

Does anyone recall Michael P saying anything when Trump sold a pardon for millions in profit from a crypto currency bribe? Of course I don't deny MP's right to criticize Ms. Pelosi on this issue. Still, we're in Matthew 7:3-5 territory here, mote-log-wise.

[apedad]

Not sure why you're knocking her when, "Pelosi suggests Trump has no 'reason' to be impeached third time if Democrats retake House." (Fox News)

[Dr. Ed 2]

"It's good to be king
And have the absolute authority"

Herod did NOT have absolute authority.

Rome was like the Soviet Union -- Herod was like king of Czechoslovakia -- anyone remember the Prague Spring?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Latest on Brown shooting -- speculation is that the girl who died, 19 year old VP of Republican club, was the target.

And the shooter reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar."

Interesting.

[David Nieporent]

Why is completely uninformed guessing or nonexistent reporting¹ "interesting"?
​
​
¹There is no reporting that he shouted "Allahu akbar." What there is are people saying "there is reporting that he shouted 'allahu akbar.'"

[ThePublius]

Well, he shouted something. What could it be? Do you think it was "Let's go Brandon?" "Let's go Mets?" "Take this, sucker?"

Ha, ha. We will likely never know. But if you had to bet, based on what is the most common thing murderers shout when killing people these days, what would it be?

[DDHarriman]

He thinks he yelled "THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY!"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We know he didn’t yell, “let’s got Marlins!” But if he did he would probably get an insanity plea deal ????

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I hate Mets fans.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I do not have any personal experience confronting mass shooters face-to-face, so I don't have any idea what the most common thing they shout is. "Die!"? "Fuck you all!"? "Burn in hell!"? "You're not carrying fentanyl or coming to the U.S., but I'm going to pretend you are and kill you!"?

[Nelson]

“ Latest on Brown shooting -- speculation is that the girl who died, 19 year old VP of Republican club, was the target.”

If you are getting your news from a source that is genuinely speculating about the motives of an unknown, unidentified assailant … actually, that would explain a whole lot.

[loki13]

The Administration lies to you, constantly, and always.

JD Vance:
"Why have rents gone down for 4 consecutive months? Because we're starting to get those illegal aliens out of the USA. Those criminals, those gang members, those people that are taking homes that ought by right go the people in this room. It's simple economics."

Before I explain this, I want you to think about this critically for a minute. I've already told you that this is a lie. Admittedly, this is a different kind of lie than they usually do (just making stuff up- like numbers, or facts, or ... everything), but it's indicative. Do you see it? Do you have your answer?

Ready?

Okay, rents have gone down for four consecutive months. Why? Because this is the SLOW SEASON FOR RENTALS. It always starts slowing in August, with lowest rent growths in August - December. ALWAYS (with the exception of Covid, when it just grew more slowly than the rest of the year).

That is WHY. It's seasonal, and it always happens. Vance is taking a known historical seasonal trend, and lying about it in order to make a false point. The rent decreases for the four months is about the same as we saw in 2024 and 2023 (less, but I'm being generous) for the same time period.

The issue of renting (and housing) is due to a number of different factors (I don't want to go into a giant thing here) that was greatly exacerbated by the COVID price spike. But Vance is lying to you. Knowingly lying to you. In order to try and justify his desired policy.

This is how fascism works.

Sell a lie (your economic hardship is being caused by an outgroup). Then promise that the government is going to punish The Other, and give their stuff to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Dr. Gregory House:
Everybody lies.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, writing "This is how fascism works" about government officials lying to advance policy is just crazy.

loki was born last night it seems

[jb]

Eh. This seems like the routine sort of massaging of statistics that basically all politicians do. At least he's pointing at actual data showing that rents have gone down for several months, instead of doing what Trump or Leavitt usually do and making statements that just have no basis in reality whatsoever.

[loki13]

Kind of. Thing is ... if you know anything about real estate, this is something you absolutely know. It would be like someone trying to take credit for a high tide- it's not the policy, it's baked into the timeline.

But it's not just that it's a meaningless statistic (if you actually know anything about the underlying facts). It's that a banal fact of life is then used to pivot to justify an unrelated policy ... to tell the crowd, in effect, that he is going to take housing from "them" and give it to "you." (Let's put aside the other lies about gang members, etc., which people have also documented)

It's the lack of seriousness when it comes to policy. It's the transparent lies. Actual policy disagreements are real- people can, and do, argue about real policy. But you need at least some overlapping frame of reality. It would be as if Trump saying that the high tide was proof that his tariffs brought in $15 trillion dollars. It's simple economics!

There are things that can be examined and actions taken to address rent and housing prices- and benefits and drawbacks to those approaches. Some are favored by the left, some by the right, and it's okay to agree or disagree about what approach to use. But this is just nativist bullshit.

(FWIW, if you really want to look at the effect of Trump's policies on housing prices, you'd need to do a deep dive on two major issues- first, the effect of tariffs on the cost of constructions, and second, the effect of his immigration policy on the construction industry. But that's, you know, not amenable to a simple, "We take stuff from them and give it you!" rah rah speech.)

[jb]

I agree substantively that it's nonsense, but politicians try to spin statistics to their benefit all the time and I'd rather that they use real numbers to do so because then we can have a substantive argument of the form you're engaging in. On the other hand, when Trump just makes up a price of gasoline or says that there are no murders in DC now or that Abrego Garcia's tattoos spell out MS-13 then we get stuck just debating over what truth is, and there are a bunch of partisan dummies here who will either credulously believe whatever fiction Trump is spouting or twist their brains to somehow make it so. I'd just like to get back to the point where we can at least start with real data as the foundation for a conversation, so I don't like lumping in these sorts of "lies" with the much more blatant ones this administration tells.

[loki13]

...I see your point. Fair.

[DDHarriman]

>Sell a lie (your economic hardship is being caused by an outgroup). Then promise that the government is going to punish The Other, and give their stuff to you.

That's literally describing class warfare, the Left's bread and butter for generations.

lol you're so fucking ignorant

[John 4]

You’re a backwater hick who calls people bugs, little guy. What are we talking about here? Sheesh.

[ThePublius]

You're foaming at the mouth over this, with what I contend is manufactured outrage. The slow season for rent doesn't start in August, August is part of the peak season for rents. Slow season starts in December.

"Key Seasons & Trends
Spring (March-May): High demand as families move before summer break, boosting prices.
Summer (June-August): Peak season driven by college students, recent grads, and families; high prices and fast leasing.
Fall (September-November): Demand slows but remains steady; good time for flexible lease offers.
Winter (December-February): Slowest season; lower demand, longer vacancies, and cheaper rent or incentives (like free rent)."

So you see something Vance says and say "lie, lie, lie!" Such bullshit.

[Randal]

Wow you're just so dumb every day. If August is the end of the peak season, then that's when the slowdown starts. Take your brain out of reverse.

[loki13]

...I wish ... that there were actual statistics and stuff people could look up.

But the person you're responding to I have ignored for a reason- they have a propensity to keep repeating nonsense they just found, and then keep repeating it knowing that it's wrong. So good luck!

[ThePublius]

"Fall (September-November): Demand slows but remains steady;"

[Randal]

That is laugh-out-loud funny for multiple reasons, which is to say, lol.

[bernard11]

I was slowing my car, but its speed remained steady.

[John 4]

Is ThePublius a Russian bot? This is so funny.

[hobie]

Probably also Vance: "Joe Biden and the radical, marxist, pedophile, antisemitic, tranny Left brought misery to the nation by causing unseasonably warm weather this summer. President Trump said he would make temperatures cooler from November to February. Promises kept."
Hayseeds [weeping with joy]: "Oh my God! He really can manipulate the weather!"

[bernard11]

this is the SLOW SEASON FOR RENTALS. It always starts slowing in August

Of course. Spring and summer, especially summer, is when people like to move. The school year is over, a new bunch of graduates are moving to take jobs, go to graduate/professional schools, etc.

Vance is just another lying scumbag. Remember the Haitians eating pets?

[hobie]

Brother J.D. Maynard (Eric Idle): "And the Lord did grin, and the Haitians did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and..."

[John F. Carr]

A decision from the intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts is related to two regular topics on this blog.
A Facebook post about City Council meetings immediately degenerated into insults, including

I'm beginning to wonder if you are capable of reading. Might want to read again and anybody who would hire you to be their attorney God Bless them, because someone must have taken the Bar exam for you

The lawyer targeted by this statement sued for defamation. The statement was not actionable because it was rhetorical hyperbole. The writer was not literally saying the plaintiff did have somebody else take the bar exam.
The victorious poster asked for attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP law. Also denied. The original comment about a City Council meeting may have been protected by the anti-SLAPP law. When the parties were trading insults the messages were no longer "petitioning activity" to influence government policy. They were merely continuing a long personal feud.

Lucey v. Kinnon, Appeals Court case 24-P-968. https://www.mass.gov/doc/lucey-v-kinnon-ac-b24p968/download

[grb]

So White House chief of staff Susie Wiles gave an interview to Vanity Fair. Snippets in no particular order:

1. Though a nondrinker, Trump has “an alcoholic’s personality.”
2. Yes, DJT is in the Epstein files.
3. Vance is a “conspiracy theorist”
4. Vought is “absolute zealot.”
5. Trump doesn’t know the details on “smallish agencies.”

The poor thing said she “tried to talk Trump out” of pardoning the 06Jan rioters. She tried to talk him out of the Liberation Day tariff fiasco. She “hoped” Trump’s Revenge Tour would only last the first ninety days. She was “ aghast” at shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, a decision that has caused thousands upon thousands of preventable deaths. Musk she found an “odd, odd duck”, possibly from his regular ketamine use.

That said, sympathy. I’m glad nobody wants to interview me! How much longer does she last? Given she’s possibly the closest thing to a normal person in a White House filled with leeches, losers, freaks, wack-jobs and (lest we forget) lifelong criminals, it would be her who gets booted first.

[David Nieporent]

And, to the surprise of nobody, she then turned around and claimed that Vanity Fair had misrepresented her, and actually Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being she's ever known in her life.

[DDHarriman]

Well there's one thing we know for sure about the media, when it comes to Trump they also give him a fair shake!!!

lmao

[Randal]

Wait so your theory is that Vanity Fair made up a bunch of Wiles quotes?

Keep drowning in that river, dude!

[loki13]

Welp, it's already come out that the interview was recorded.

So when Wiles denied a specific statement (Musk and ketamine), the reporter just played the recording ... of her making the statement that was quoted.

Not that "facts" matter. I am sure we will see the usual suspects continue to deny it because ... they don't care about facts, or the truth, or whatever. I'd say it's like whac-a-mole, but here it's the same people, making the same false statements, that have been told the truth ... and they just continue to repeat the lies that they prefer.

[Randal]

The best part of this one is that the quotes actually make her seem marginally saner than anyone else in the administration. Maybe even more than marginally. So it just goes to show how little tolerance MAGAts have for sanity that they're like "No! It's all lies, she's really just as insane as everybody else!"

For the rest of us, the Vanity Fair article is almost a puff piece. Intentional triangulation on Susie's part? Probably. Pretty amazing times we live in when you can give a quote to the media to impress one side, then just claim that the evil media made it up to impress the other side.

[David Nieporent]

For the rest of us, the Vanity Fair article is almost a puff piece. Intentional triangulation on Susie's part? Probably.

Remember all the Jared-and-Ivanka-have-been-moderating-forces pieces from the first Trump administration?

[loki13]

In fairness, Jared is a moderating force. I am sure he moderates Trump's desire to be cruel and make sure people are constantly talking about him with a desire to make money from the office.

"Look, Big Daddy,* I know you want to make another post making fun of someone who just got murdered, but you need to take a little time and pardon a drug trafficker that can put $20 million in the Trump accounts- bitcoin, untraceable. Don't forget, the Kush needs his taste! Do this for me and I'll have Ivanka wear that swimsuit to Mar-a-lago that you like."

*I'm reasonably certain that is what Jared calls Trump.

[loki13]

LAWSUIT INCOMING!!!!!

Attorney: What do you think the damages are, Emperor Pal... Oh Great and Wondrous Trump?

Trump: What did we do with the BBC?

Attorney: Well, about that. We said it was $5 billion, but we actually pled two counts at $5 billion each. We think.

Trump: Hmmmm.... well, let's do $500 billion! And make sure to sue them on my behalf too. They were very very nasty to me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My understanding is that the general idea is that she made a big show of it being all b.s. but didn't really dispute specific details. Shades of what other Trump people, including Hegseth, do regularly.

The White House also had all the Cabinet members simultaneously put out statements supporting Susie Wiles.

(‪Ron Filipkowski on Bluesky has a convenient screengrab of all the comments on X.)

[David Nieporent]

My understanding is that the general idea is that she made a big show of it being all b.s. but didn't really dispute specific details. Shades of what other Trump people, including Hegseth, do regularly.

Yep: when the war crimes story came out about Hegseth, DOD didn't say "The facts reported in this story are false." They said, "The narrative is false."

[loki13]

Also? If the James or Comey Vengeance Tours ever try to spin up again, the Vanity Fair article will be YET ANOTHER exhibit in the Motion to Dismiss for Vindicative Prosecution.

...apparently, Comey's attorneys have informed the DOJ they will likely seek fees under the Hyde Amendment (no, not that one, the other one). Have to admit, not something I have any experience with, and wasn't even aware of it given how little it is used and that crimlaw isn't my bag.

[Estragon]

To me this reads like positioning in the factional power struggles that are just beginning to play out as Trump becomes further mentally compromised and disengaged with governance. The readers of Vanity Fair are most assuredly not the intended recipients of these messages, nor the general public.

[hobie]

She best be getting all her mortgages in order, pronto!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pat Summerall and John Madden were a leading team calling NFL games over the years. Pat Summerall's oldest is Susan Wiles, now Trump's chief of staff, and the subject of a profile getting some attention.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-susie-wiles-interview-exclusive-part-1

[Details covered in another comment.]

[DDHarriman]

I'm so sure a close Trump insider goes on the record and perfectly confirms every silly stupid Leftwing trope.

Totally happened folx.

[apedad]

DD!

The anti-semites are looking really bad for taking some violent actions against Jewish people recently.

Any words of encouragement for your fellow a-s's?

[grb]

The White House just posted another Caribbean snuff porn video. No doubt the intended audience - MAGA - is having their (hopefully private) moment of viewing pleasure as I type.

That said, they still haven't released the video of murdering people clinging to wreckage in the open water. I hardly know why. I bet MAGA would get off doubly on that.

[Estragon]

I question the idea that these releases are intended for MAGA. MAGA is already where they need to be. These videos are intended for the rest of us.

[hobie]

'See these brown bloody torsos in the water, America? This can be you if you don't conform'

[David Nieporent]

I assume you're just being snarky. The actual message is,

(1) I can do whatever i want and you can't stop me, so nyah nyah; and
(2) I can maneuver you into a position where I can claim you're defending drug dealers.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not everything is entirely driven by a calculated political strategy. Sometimes base people have base desires and their base leaders like to fulfill those desires just for the pleasure of it. Because they share them too. It’s fun for everyone involved.

[Estragon]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/contractor-snowplow-pro-palestinian-protesters-demostration-toronto-9.7009357

Is Ed actually a Canadian woman named Athena?

[loki13]

"Is Ed actually a Canadian woman named Athena?"

Based on the comments, that would mean a LOT of internalized misogyny.

[Estragon]

Sometimes it’s who you least expect

[loki13]

Ed is the Spanish Inquisition?

reviews Ed's commenting history about the chosen people

Checks out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would I drive a Kobota???

[ducksalad]

My Fellow Americans: I will be giving an ADDRESS TO THE NATION tomorrow night, LIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, at 9 P.M. EST. I look forward to “seeing” you then. It has been a great year for our Country, and THE BEST IS YET TO COME!

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Anything significant, or just "Merry Christmas and I am the greatest man who ever lived" for an hour or so?

[hobie]

You hayseeds should be concerned. An entire hour of self-congartualtion on live TV is going to make Biden look sane by comparison. And pray he only sticks to self-congratulation.

[loki13]

What is weirder- the bizarre splash of all-caps at random?* Or the weird use of quotes (why is the word "seeing" in quotes ... it's a colloquial use that is correct, and if he wanted to be accurate, he should have substituted in "talking to" or something similar ... but it's weird)?

I suppose the all-caps does mean that I don't have to worry about his equally weird use of capitalization for some words.

I know that all of this is absolutely meaningless compared to the actual serious issues we are facing, but still- is it too much to ask that official communications from the President (and other government agencies) aren't weird, overly familiar, and not shitposts?

I suppose I should be thankful that he didn't include some bizarre and offensive AI slop video, probably involving him pissing on the graves of the Reiners. ...ugh. He probably will, won't he?

*Okay, I know I am not one to complain about that ... but I am also not the President.

[ThePublius]

I'm finding that carrying around a classic film camera is almost as good as having a puppy for attracting women, especially in the museum and library communities.

Medium format is best. I have a Rolleiflex TLR, and also a couple of Bronica medium format SLRs. The Rollei is more discreet since its shutter is almost silent. The Bronica's shutter sounds like slamming a car door! But, it has interchangeable lenses and backs, and I can swap out wide angle to 'normal' to telephoto, and also B&W to color, mid-roll. But it's quite a lot of gear to haul around. My cute little Yashica 44 TLR is also good for this.

BTW, as I have mentioned before, I develop the film myself. Then 'scan' it via DSLR and pull it into Adobe Lightroom and process it with Negative Lab Pro.

Anyway, a lighter topic, I just thought I'd blab about that.

(Last count I think I have at least a dozen functioning film cameras, 35mm and medium format - Exacta, Miranda, Yashica, Bronica, etc.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — Your list omits 3 superior classics. Hasselblad, of course. Then Mamiya RZ Pro 67. Then the ultimate in well-remembered portable large format film: Speed Graphic. That last probably made more enduring images in the hands of news, sports, and war photographers than all the rest put together.

If you are interested, I have a RZ pro 67 with superb lenses available for nice prices. I paid for the entire system with one photo I took using a 300 mm APO Mamiya lens, f/4.5 if memory serves. I just found a source online to tell me that lens does not exist. It does. Do I remember correctly that you live in MA, or is that someone else?

[Bwaaah]

The educated political Democratic (EPD) class in the U.S. has a Victorian sensibility about speech and propriety in political speech. They expect a distinct respectfulness of tone in treatment of certain groups of people, particularly as categorized by what they call "immutable characteristics" (which has morphed into a range of both mutable and immutable characteristics). Those groups, though not formally defined, reflect a consensus among educated political Democrats of "Groups Worthy of Special Sympathetic Treatment" (GWSST). EPDs expect NO LESS THAN respectful speech about ALL of those GWSST groups

Currently, the GWSST groups include, but are not limited to: "muslims," "brown people", "indigenous people", "black:people", "transgender people", "differently-abled(?) people", "latinos", "immigrants", "migrants", "Gazans", "Haitians", "Somalis", "gay", "lesbian", [all initial substrings of] "LGBTQIA+"

In addition to rigid expectations of carefully respectful speech about GWSST groups, educated political Democrats also expect similarly special regard for certain "Undeniably Moral Positions We Affirm"  (UMPWA). All EPDs routinely (usually every day) vocally audibly express affirmation of one or more UMPWAs. The importance of UMPWAs is not as truths, but as shared affirmations of sympathy to the tribe (i.e. Democrats), and opposition to all other Americans who may fail to express any of those UMPWA sympathies.

Currently, Undeniably Moral Positions We Affirm include, but are not limited to:
--- Climate change is an imminent existential threat to humanity
--- Humanity is destroying its habitat and nature
--- DJT is evil
--- Women have a right to abortion
--- Racism is a scourge of humanity
--- MAGA is a scourge of the United States

Again, those are not important as truths, but as routinely vocalized symbols of sympathy to the Democratic tribe.

Educated political Democrats not only talk those talks, but also, they expect others to talk those talks. It is that difference alone that distinguishes their enemies...people who violate those speech-based shibboleths regarding certain groups and policies..

Outside the educated political Democratic class, people are much more inclined to express their positional differences without needing to always affirm particular people groups (GWSSTs) or to always affirm inviolable policy positions (UMPWAs).

But with EPDs, if you follow how their shibboleths work, here's how to figure the sides using one simple question...

--- Are you opposed to Trump, or not?

[Stephen Lathrop]

BWAAAH — I genuinely like your notion of UMPWAs. Nice compact coinage, with a derogatory charge in its very sound.

Problem is, I genuinely subscribe to all six of those propositions. But I have never been a Democrat, and until now, during the entire interval beginning with the Clinton administration, I have been publishing harsh critiques of Democratic Party politics. I conclude your rhetoric works better than your reasoning.

[Bwaaah]

UMPWA is not intended to be derogatory. It reflects how a certain class of people react to any rejection of a policy on that list.

You are not necessarily a person in that group I call "educated political Democrats," Stephen. As a matter of fact, your rhetoric and beliefs, though they intersect much with Democratic norms, look to me to be more self-adapted rather than conveniently meshing with Democratic conventions.

You (and hobie as another example) probably don't fit the mold I'm talking about. You are probably quite comfortable with disagreement and people who disagree with you. Political differences don't destroy characters for you; characters destroy themselves, and not so arbitrarily or simply because they disagreed with this or that policy position.

A significant number of Democrats don't fit the EPD mold. But a substantial number, like in my observation, more than half of professional class political Democrats now, are pretty dumb about their us/them rules. With them, if you fail to endorse even a single one of those UMPWA policies, they'll summarily mark you as One of Them.

This is a complement to you, Stephen. You don't strike me as being an EPD. As I indicated, the rightfulness or wrongfulness of UMPWA policies has nothing to do with the purpose they serve, which is as a de facto purity test filter. But probably not for you.

[grb]

Rightwingers lead such exciting lives. Take Bwaaah as an example. Since he's found a miniscule morsel of notoriety with his "I'm really a liberal" B.S, he's apparently going to make trolling over the claim his lifelong mission. Thus we're certain to get endless half-digested and meaningless slop like this that's "funny" only because of the crude lie claim. Fun times at The Volokh Conspiracy, eh?

Does anyone think it would do any good to suggest a hobby to him, like birdwatching or macrame?

[Bwaaah]

You, grb, model the idiotic behavior I described.

[grb]

Sigh. I take it that's a no on birdwatching or macrame.....

[ThePublius]

Brown University wiped its Mustapha Kharbouch page within the past hour or so...

https://x.com/BostonByBirth/status/2000989295662743618

https://x.com/OldeWorldOrder/status/2001008518149890551

There is a coverup in progress on this case. Providence police, FBI must be cooperating in it.

[grb]

Please just stop. If Mr. Kharbouch is the murder suspect, we'll find out soon enough without your tin-foil-hat braindead gibberish. The authorities didn't release information on their last "person of interest", but his name, picture, and life story was still across the internet in hours. Care to work out how you'd feel if that was you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably glad -- my guess is he'd love to find an attorney to sue Brrown for kicking him out for bogus psych reasons.

[David Nieporent]

Can you show us on the doll where the psychologist touched you?

[David Nieporent]

Why would Brown have a "Mustapha Kharbouch page" in the first place?

[hobie]

"Coast Guard enacts policy calling swastikas and nooses ‘potentially divisive,’ not hate symbols"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/16/coast-guard-swastikas-nooses/

Young Republicans dictating military policy. All the facets of the Final Solution 2.0 are falling into place. And it's not like all our Jewish friends here haven't been sufficiently warned over and over and over again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds right. Both symbols can sometimes, but not always, be used as hate symbols. Swastikas are common in Hinduism and Buddhism and other Eastern religions.

And apparently it can be a good way to lay out buildings. Do we really want to spend millions of dollars rebuilding buildings over something like that?

[grb]

The WaPo reported this policy change back on 20Nov and was told their story was "fake". The Coast Guard issued statements no change was under consideration. “The @washingtonpost should be embarrassed it published this fake crap,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin posted on X. The DHS’s official X account also posted: “Y’all are just making things up now.”

Who could have possibly predicted all those denials were bald-faced lies!

https://time.com/7335634/coast-guard-washington-post-fake-report-hate-symbols-swastika-noose/

[hobie]

The filthy, dirty, terrorist, antisemitic, pedophile, immigrant tranny Muslim who saved countless Jews at Bondi has his gofundme at $2.4M. And it is rising by about $100,000 every hour

https://www.gofundme.com/f/zbcjn-support-the-hero-who-disarmed-a-bondi-attacker