Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Both houses of Congress have now approved legislation that could force the Pentagon to turn over footage of strikes against suspected drug smugglers.

According to Politico, lawmakers are using the sprawling policy bill to demand the Pentagon hand over unedited videos of strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats near Latin America. The bill restricts a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until Congress receives the footage.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/senate-ndaa-passage-trump-boat-strikes-00694738

That is encouraging. The Trump administration should also be required to disclose the shady legal memoranda that were reportedly produced over the summer by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and which the Department of Defense is purportedly relying on to justify the Caribbean strikes. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/11/trump-boat-strikes-lawyers-torture-memos-column-00685071

The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have sued the Department of Justice, the Department of State and the Department of Defense in the Southern District of New York pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act seeking to compel disclosure of the OLC memo. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.654371/gov.uscourts.nysd.654371.1.0.pdf Let's hope that effort succeeds.

[Malika la Maize]

Have you tried reading legal realism?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, there is this thing called, help me out here, a veto = Both houses of Congress have now approved legislation...

I know, I know....POTUS Trump would never veto a Congressional bill he doesn't agree with. 😉

[David Nieporent]

It's the NDAA, not a standalone bill. Hard to veto it.

[Commenter_XY]

Good point. Looks like SecWar Hegeseth got his wings clipped.

[not guilty]

Politico reports that Trump has signed the bill. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/12/18/congress/trump-defense-bill-00699102

[Commenter_XY]

Looking forward to seeing how we efficiently snuff drug smugglers and dealers, and then make sure the job is done. 😉

[hobie]

Not supposed to 'snuff' unarmed civilains...no matter what they're doing. That's called murder. No matter. The Newsomberg Trials of 2029 will bring all to justice.

[loki13]

It's revealing that you use the word "snuff," and are so happy about this. It's revealed preferences- at least you admit that you are in this because you enjoy watching snuff videos.

To recap-
1. The Administration began with the claim (and continues to reiterate) that this about "drug smuggling" by specifically "identified" "narco-traffickers" who are bringing "fentanyl" to the "United States."

2. As we now know-
a. The actual legal basis is that this is a defense of our allies, Columbia and Mexico. Um, our ally Columbia, the same one Trump has threatened to invade.
b. In several cases, the claim that there were any drugs, of any kind, has been disputed. We have not provided any evidence.
c. We have admitted that we do not specifically identify the individuals before the strikes, but instead use the "fact" that they are on "known routes" and therefore are "within three steps" of known narco-traffickers. Pro-tip- everyone in the US is within three steps of known narco-traffickers.
d. It's not fentanyl. When it is drugs, it's cocaine.
e. When it is cocaine, it's not coming to the US. It would be a trans-shipment to Europe.

Two conclusions-
A. We are blowing up fishmerman and boats carrying cocaine that will eventually go to Europe to defend our Mexico and Columbia (who do not want our help in this way) to prevent cocaine going to Europe (who do not want our help in this way) in order to bring large numbers of military assets around Venezuela ... because Trump thinks that we get to take their oil.
B. XY enjoys snuff films.

Q.E.D.

[Estragon]

“Snuff” as in snuff film is such an unintentionally revealing turn of phrase, in that such films definitionally have a pornographic element. The idea of someone getting sexual gratification from watching this grainy, low-resolution drone footage is… unsettling to say the least. Then again, the presence of such people in this blessed country who also apparently have enough time and money to come to an ostensibly legal blog day in and day out to proclaim their eagerness for such things might go a long way towards explaining how someone like Donald Trump was twice elected.

[not guilty]

“Snuff” as in snuff film is such an unintentionally revealing turn of phrase, in that such films definitionally have a pornographic element. The idea of someone getting sexual gratification from watching this grainy, low-resolution drone footage is… unsettling to say the least. Then again, the presence of such people in this blessed country who also apparently have enough time and money to come to an ostensibly legal blog day in and day out to proclaim their eagerness for such things might go a long way towards explaining how someone like Donald Trump was twice elected.

Bloodlust is a horrible characteristic, which is unfortunately too common among MAGAts like Commenter_XY.

[hobie]

All my European friends in UK and Portugal think that all our racism and depravity is just a phase we're going through and that we'll snap out of it come the next election. I have no way of articulating to them that the 40% that think this way...well...that's permanent. It is in their souls

[Life of Brian]

“Snuff” as in snuff film

Oh, stop. The fact that a notoriously well-understood word in the English language recently picked up a fringe, perverse connotation doesn't somehow make that the default meaning.

Origin and history of snuff
snuff(v.1)

"to cut or pinch off the burned part of a candle wick," mid-15c., snoffen, from noun snoffe "burned part of a candle wick" (late 14c.), a word of unknown origin, perhaps related to snuff (v.2).

The meaning "to die" is from 1865; that of "to kill" is from 1932; snuff-film, pornography involving the actual killing of a woman, originally an urban legend, is from 1975.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/snuff

[LawTalkingGuy]

The context here is releasing videos of boat strikes and Commenter’s desire to see them.

[Malika la Maize]

That a word has taken on a meaning fifty years ago means its fringe!

Bri Bri wishes you all a gay old time!

[Estragon]

Well, just how old do you think he is? Your “recently fringe” definition has likely been in use his entire adult life. Maybe he can respond for himself— perhaps it really is sexually thrilling for him. Why would you rule that out? On the other hand, maybe you are right and perhaps it is just the garden variety casually gleeful sadism we see so often around here.

Your eagerness to jump in here is overdetermined, and noted.

[Life of Brian]

*shrug*

As with "have you stopped beating your wife yet," I don't see any particular need to "rule out" that which has no basis beyond your own perverted take.

[Estragon]

Perverted take, lol. His words, his eagerness— not mine. Since you have your dictionary out and handy why don’t you look up depraved while you’re at it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is a guy who bragged he watched CSAM because it purportedly contained Hunter Biden, and then described it as Hunter “getting his freak on.”

So he’s an incredibly base creature who revels in depravity.

[Life of Brian]

This is a guy who bragged he watched CSAM because it purportedly contained Hunter Biden

You got some receipts for that thar libel, son?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/22/the-question-i-would-ask-kbj-how-would-you-change-the-supreme-court-confirmation-process/?comments=true#comments

Unfortunately the comments of the person who initially announced that he had seen a video purportedly showing Hunter Biden raping a 14 year old have disappeared.

But you can see NAS's post quoting the original comment, and then explaining what he's actually describing.

Then you can see Commenter replying directly to NAS:

"Nas...It (the video) was on Taiwanese TV. Hunter was definitely getting his freak on."

[Bob from Ohio]

"It (the video) was on Taiwanese TV."

CSAM is apparently illegal in Taiwan so if it was on Taiwan TV, I think you ought to prove it was CSAM or apologize.

You got proof?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I actually don't have to do any such thing. The original assertion was that it was CSAM involving Hunter Biden. Commenter clearly admitted to watching such material.

And because I am not a depraved idiot, I am not going to go out searching for something purporting to be CSAM to prove anything.

I am just taking Commenter at his word: he knew what it purported to be and watched it.

[Life of Brian]

Commenter clearly admitted to watching such material.

That you felt the need to say "clearly" speaks for itself. The Taiwanese TV station broadcast was a rumor going around at the time, as I suspect you know full well.

My original question was rhetorical -- I knew you didn't have squat. As Bob said, you need to apologize.

[Magister]

Commenter_XY is a depraved person, which is already demonstrated in his comment above and numerous comments in the recent past. Maybe Commenter_XY was just lying in the linked comment. Surprisingly, Bob from Ohio doesn't think that Commenter_XY owes Taiwanese TV an apology for that lie, or owes Hunter Biden an apology for an assertion that Commenter_XY would have had no basis to make.

Of course, Bob from Ohio is also an awful human being, and Life of Brian just likes defending his fellow cultists with dubious logic.

[not guilty]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but when someone describes the content of a video, he speaks either from personal knowledge from having seen it, or through his ass.

When the subject matter so described is child porn, neither option speaks well of the one describing it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Actually I don’t! He’s been challenged on this before and this was his response:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/18/friday-open-thread-29/?comments=true#comment-11131646

A defense of the act rather than a denial! Anyway, I’m not apologizing because these questions are all answered in the original thread

1. Was there a video that was represented as and XY believed to be CSAM? Yes.
2. Did XY say he watched it? Yes.

[Life of Brian]

Did XY say he watched it? Yes.

Another knowing lie. At least you've wised up and didn't paste what he actually said this time so it's at least not QUITE so obvious.

Shame on you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. Shame on you!

“...It (the video) was on Taiwanese TV. Hunter was definitely getting his freak on.”

How could he possibly know this without watching it: and why didn’t he deny it?

Shame on you again for going out of your way to defend this ghastly behavior.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, you're starting to get nervous now -- the shrill bluster is a dead tell.

Your defense now depends on a Hunter Biden CSAM video actually having been aired on Taiwanese TV. As I said earlier, I'm confident you know good and well that didn't happen.

Again, shame on you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What did XY think he was watching? And why did he respond to NAS that way if he didn’t view it?

I’m not nervous about anything. I’m not the one who viewed CSAM because Hunter Biden.

[Life of Brian]

No, you're just one doubling down on knowing libel whilst cowering behind your pseudonymous account. Classic bully dynamic.

Shame on you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Knowing libel.” Give me a fucking break.

You still haven’t actually come up with an explanation for his own words that doesn’t result in an admission from him that he sought out and viewed CSAM.

You saying “libel” doesn’t change what he said.

I’ll waive service if he wants to sue me.

[Life of Brian]

You still haven’t actually come up with an explanation for his own words that doesn’t result in an admission

"Adoptive ADMISSHUN, hur dur!" is just a game immature lawyers toss about around here when they don't actually have anything to work with. He's under no obligation to dance to your tune, bully.

I’ll waive service

Ha -- while continuing to cower behind the pseudonymity where, after jumping through all the hoops required to pierce that, actual service would be pretty much an afterthought? Belly up to the bar for real, big talker.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m genuinely curious: what do you think he did and why do you think it was defensible?

And yeah I’ll bully shit the out of someone who speaks so crassly about CSAM. “Get his freak on” in a discussion about child abuse.

[Life of Brian]

Based on the actual words in front of all of us, he repeated a well-known rumor going on at the time. Everything else is a collage of snippets glued together by your own wishful thinking.

From where I sit, you spent more than a year repeatedly pounding mad_kalek over this (who, let's be clear, actually DID affirmatively say he watched a video, and which you called out in the very same thread when he said it). Then, after he nuked his account, you had some sort of compulsive need to fabricate another target by spinning up a fresh interpretation of a post from that same original thread, about which you made nary a peep at the time.

Some introspection over what exactly might be driving that sort of irrational obsession might be in order, if you're capable.

Either way, shame on you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"he repeated a well-known rumor going on at the time."

How did he know about this rumor? What circles was he travelling in that he discovered this? Why would he follow it up with the description "Hunter was definitely getting his freak on." How would he know that without viewing it? Why would he describe it that way? Do you think it appropriate to describe suspected CSAM that way?

"From where I sit, you spent more than a year repeatedly pounding mad_kalek over this."

Do you think what mad_kalak did was defensible and he shouldn't have been called out?

"Some introspection over what exactly might be driving that sort of irrational obsession might be in order, if you're capable."

It's actually quite rational to call out shameless consumption of CSAM.

"Either way, shame on you."

This is coming from a guy who once doxxed someone else here and is extremely keen on defending the sex crimes of someone who won't even defend himself on this point, so it is a rather meaningless condemnation.

[not guilty]

"Based on the actual words in front of all of us, he repeated a well-known rumor going on at the time."

A gossip who spreads a rumor without acknowledging it as such -- indeed, who asserts it as fact -- cares little for truth or falsity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Politico reports that Trump has signed the bill."

He issued a signing statement saying he is going to ignore the video clause, and other limitations in the bill.

[Magister]

Will we see a TACO on that?

[Bob from Ohio]

Why? Congress won't do anything about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And you will have blood on YOUR hands.

During WWII, some politician told the press that Japanese depth charges weren't a threat to our subs because the subs could go below the depth that the Japanese set them at.

Japanese read this, set them to go off deeper, and Americans died.

Same thing here -- that footage will tell our enemies things we don't want them to know about our drones.

[David Nieporent]

Same thing here -- that footage will tell our enemies things we don't want them to know about our drones.

No, it won't.

[DDHarriman]

Wrong.

[DDHarriman]

You forget who these people serve.

It isn't America or her ideals.

[not guilty]

Who has forgotten who which people serve?

Our military personnel, including the Doofus-in-chief and his Secretary of Defense, each take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[gregoryjp]

TIL murdering civilians is an American ideal.

[Moderation4ever]

This is silly if showing the video endangered our drowns then the administration would not show any of the footage. The fact that they show footage they want us to see and withhold other footage tells us the showing the video not a threat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some parts are more valuable than others

[Moderation4ever]

Are they? Or are some parts just more embarrassing than others?

[Krayt]

Early 21st Century

[Dr. Ed 2]

Likely both.

But the Dem leadership has seen them.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you see that photo of Don jr with his new fiancée?? Don jr has some tig ol bitties!! If Hegseth knocks back a few bourbons he won’t be able to keep his hands off them!!! 😉

[DDHarriman]

Shouldn't you be making some 50s cultural reference? Like George Bush, or that faggy Queen band, or speakeasy's or some shit?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hegseth gets so drunk I could see him titty fucking him…nasty style!!! 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Freddie Mercury (redacted) more hot chicks than dreamt of in your (faggy) Philosophy

[Bwaaah]

Strangely, I think there's at least a little bit of something for everybody in your remark.

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal!

[Krayt]

He did once say sex with men was just sex, and he only had romantic feelings for women.

[Kazinski]

Incredible Thursday Night Football game between the Rams and the Seahawks. The Rams offense at times looked unstoppable, and at other times like they could be shutdown at will.

Seahawks were lucky to win, no other way to describe the foiled 2 point conversion that was ruled a backwards pass and gifted them a decisive 2 points to make it a one score game than one of the luckiest flukiest plays of the year. But the Seahawks executed in the clutch and dominated on special teams.

Rams had 581 yards and no turnovers, to Seattle's 415 and 3 turnovers and lost.

[Malika la Maize]

The Seahawks are certainly one of the major stories of the NFL this year so far.

[Kazinski]

Nobody remembers they were tied the Rams for first place in the NFC West last year at 10-7, but lost out on making the playoffs on the last tiebreaker SOV (Strength of Victory, average winning percentage of the teams they beat). If the Rams hadn't lost to Carolina 2 weeks ago the exact same thing could have happened this year, and still could happen if the Rams win out, 49ers lose to the Bears, but beat the Seahawks in the last game. If all 3 teams go 13-4 49ers will win the tiebreaker and the division and the #1 seed.

[Kazinski]

And as an aside Puka Nacua had to apologize earlier in the week for demoing a new TD celebration dance on a podcast:

"Puka reprehensibly vowed to Ross that the next touchdown he scores he will do a “Covetous Jew” dance, which Ross taught Nacua and involves spinning a dreidel, flexing, then rubbing his hands together while mimicking an established antisemitic trope."

Puka did have 225 yards and 2 TDs, but no "Covetous Jew" TD dance.

[Commenter_XY]

To be fair, Puka issued a public apology and stated he had no idea of the antisemitic nature of the dance. That is what he wrote. Was he being truthful? Only he and God know that answer.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well....Judge Dugan is now Convict Dugan.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/milwaukee-county-judge-found-guilty-obstructing-federal-immigration-agents-courthouse-incident

NG was right, she was thoroughly unsympathetic to the jury, and her frumpy appearance and demeanor did not help matters.

[Kazinski]

She thought she was being a hero for saving a thug form deportation, and she already knew what he had (allegedly) done. And I'm sure ready to cut him a break in court proceedings if it would help him stay here.

[not guilty]

Judgment has not yet been entered, and the District Court took the defense motion for judgment of acquittal under advisement. If the motion is granted after verdict the government will have the right to appeal to the Seventh Circuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

[DDHarriman]

Have you reflected upon how wrong all your legal analyses of her case were?

If not, don't you think you should?

[Michael P]

Being wrong never stopped him before. Why would it now?

It's probably good that he retired from law; otherwise, truth-in-advertising laws might compel him to change his account name to "not right".

[DDHarriman]

He was forcibly retired.

[Frank Drackman]

She could be a Benny Hill Impersonator

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have more questions than answers with the Portuguese shooter.

He was enrolled from September 2000 to April 2001, when he took a leave of absence before formally withdrawing in July 2003"

Why did the leave of absence start in April and formally withdraw in July? Usually the leave would start with the start of the *next* semester, i.e. September, and would end two years later, i.e September. Here it appears to start mid-semester and end mid-summer.

That looks like they booted him for psych reasons. Technically called something like an "involuntary medical leave", they know they'd lose a lawsuit if they booted him outright, so they make it temporary and "for his own good" and have conditions that they know he can't meet and then technically boot him for that.

Universities make used car dealers look honest and ethical by comparison, but I digress....

As he was here on a student visa, he should have been sent home to Portugal in 2001 but wasn't -- and then won a "diversity" green card in something like 2017 -- which means he was here illegally for 16 years

Maybe he acted on his own, but maybe he didn't,

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I haven't seen an explanation as to why the Team Hamas member was scrubbed from the Brown website.

[David Nieporent]

Probably because there are assholes trying to get him lynched by calling him "Team Hamas."

[David Nieporent]

Oh, god. Dr. Ed is going to take random facts that he didn't even read correctly and craft an entire fictitious narrative out of them based on his own mental illnesses.

1) College students take voluntary leaves of absence all the time. Anything from personal family reasons to financial problems to medical issues.
2) There is no evidence that he was "booted for psych reasons."
3) There is no evidence that he was "booted" at all.
4) Why Dr. Ed is assuming without knowing any facts that the guy was "here illegally for 16 years" is a mystery whose answer is known only to him. Indeed, none of the coverage so far says he was here at all during those years.

Notably, while spinning his new flights of fancy, Dr. Ed will never admit that all of his previous "analysis" [sic] was completely wrong.

[Magister]

Yesterday's "analysis" was even more disconnected from reality:

Don't you know that I am with Iranian Intelligence and that I bankrolled this homeless guy's trip from Miami to Massachusetts?

On a more serious note, if Iran wanted to assassinate a key Physics professor in the US, they wouldn't do it themselves. Too much of a trail that led back to them.

No, you'd find some mentally-unbalanced loser and manipulate him into doing it for you. Israel thinks Iran was behind this...

[grb]

Yep. People were ignoring all the craziness yesterday while debating whether to give Ed kudos for guessing right on the connection between the Brown and MIT murderers. And multiple other regulars here were hot on this goofy Iranian business, with another picking some poor random Muslim student and insisting there was a "cover-up" that protected his involvement.

Also, I haven't yet seen a "motive" so again propose my three-part truce:

1. That I and others no longer wait on pins and needles to see whether some mentally-ill murdering loon is on "my side" or the "other side".

2. That if he's on "my side", everyone acknowledge that's not true at all - he's just a mentally-ill murdering loon who represents no one.

3. That if he's on the "other side", I don't gloat but acknowledge that's not true at all - he's just a mentally-ill murdering loon who represents no side.

This takes care of 99.9 & 9/10s of the cases like this, but there are exceptions. For instance, the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States murder for political entertainment.

[Life of Brian]

This takes care of 99.9 & 9/10s of the cases like this, but there are exceptions.

Ah, so a "truce" where the sides agree not to shoot at each other any more, EXCEPT FOR those folks the proposer of the "truce" deems to need killin'. Who wouldn't sign up for that?

[grb]

I'm not sure you're getting in the spirit of this truce, LOB.....

[Magister]

I'm perfectly willing to consider that the President and the Secretary of Defense are mentally ill murdering loons, but the right does own them on the basis of electing the former who nominated the latter with Republican-controlled Senate approval. Premature attributions of motive should be avoided; it is generally responsible not to speculate, contra Peggy Noonan.

But I also think the motivations of even mentally ill murdering loons are relevant for criticism of the rhetoric that turns out to have motivated the killer (e.g., calling the targets of their killing traitors, vermin, etc., and endorsing second amendment remedies and stand back/stand by) and the rhetoric that follows (e.g., Trump's reaction to the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife). That will be difficult to separate out on both sides.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel -- not Ed -- was saying that the Iranians could be behind this.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-880573

Just sayin...

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was sarcasm...

If I really *was* with Iranian Intelligence, would I be posting any of this?

[Magister]

Yes, we are aware that even Iranians would not employ someone as ignorant as Dr. Ed 2 for anything related to intelligence.

The craziness is thinking that they would resort to an operative who commits murders two days before the murder they want of a key Physics professor and depends on bystanders not shooting that operative and the police not finding that operative within two days. They'd have to manipulate multiple mentally ill people to have any certainty of achieving their objective, and the odds then go up that their manipulation would be discovered if the operative is caught and questioned. (If they could murder said operative without being detected, why wouldn't they just use that method to murder their target?)

[Dr. Ed 2]

For starters, lets look at the CIA and Castro and those laughably stupid attempts.

Second, maybe they had reason(s) for Brown. CR is pretty much useless, but maybe Ella Cook was forming a TPUSA chapter.

[Malika la Maize]

A comment on Ilya’s post last evening about a position at George Mason University in Northern Virginia…Behold the power of propaganda and/or resentment:

Longtobefree   3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Sounds interesting, but I am not suited to living in a left wing hell hole.
(4400 University Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030)

Having recently taking the slightly southern trek to that area I looked up the stats.

Compared to the national average, Fairfax has significantly lower unemployment, crime, poverty and obesity and significantly higher median income and population with advanced degree. Truly a hell hole!

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/virginia/fairfax-county#overview

[Kazinski]

But a large population of undesirables: federal workers, contractors, and lobbyists.

I think that's what he meant.

[Malika la Maize]

Undesirables producing these great conditions?

Does he (or you) know the definition here?

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, they're undesirables for the rest of the nation; Their great conditions come from leaching off the rest of the country.

[Malika la Maize]

He said hell hole.

[Life of Brian]

Defined as "a place of extreme misery or squalor," to the speaker.

"Left wing hell hole" doesn't seem particularly confusing in context.

[Malika la Maize]

And a place of highly educated well off persons in a low crime area is one of extreme squalor and misery?

[Ska]

I find Brooklyn to be a pretty miserable place, all the great things about it (well, certain neighborhoods at least) not withstanding.

[Life of Brian]

one of extreme squalor and misery?

For future reference, when the only way you can pretend to maintain your position is to shamelessly rewrite "or" as "and", it might ultimately be less embarrassing just to stay quiet and pretend you didn't see my post.

[Magister]

The irony of Life of Brian lecturing on logic! It doesn't sound like squalor or misery.

[Life of Brian]

It doesn't sound like squalor or misery.

And to the OP it did. What of it?

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q(anon, says Trump is an informant on Epstein) and A(deflects Trump assholery), now attacks Marjorie T Greene on her death threat claims.

I’m not one to defend MTG’s credibility, but I’d like to know what Mikie Q&A thinks about Trump calling her a traitor. Seems petulantly unprecedentedly crazy to me, but interested in his assessment.

[Malika la Maize]

To be clear, in recent time Trump has

Called someone a retard
Attacked a murder victim as deranged
Called a member of his party a traitor….

What say you Mikie Q&A and other cultists?

Gonna lead with Obama’s tan suit?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump has murdered 80 people so far…killing foreigners for being in a boat with cocaine in it that will never end up in America is murder. Why does Trump care if someone in Venezuela snorts cocaine??

[Krayt]

killing foreigners for being in a boat with cocaine in it that will never end up in America is murder

I don't like what he's doing and don't support it as policy. It's legally questionable as to his authority. But killing people who are killing others, even if they are not in the US, I have a hard time calling it murder ethically. It might be, but I don't reject the idea out of hand as virtue signal, to say nothing of 100% contrarianism to a foe's deeds.

One can wish things aren't as they are all day long. I will join you! Yet people keep dying.

[Magister]

The US shouldn't be trying to enforce Europe's laws, though, and especially not by murdering people.

While Gandalf's advice to Frodo may have been driven by magical inside information, it is still worthwhile: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

[jb]

They're not "killing others", though, unless you think anyone involved in the tobacco industry or alcohol distribution can also be treated in the same manner. Yes, all of these products sometimes kill people, but there's an incredibly tenuous chain of causality between transporting drugs on a boat to any individual death.

[loki13]

I mean, other than the fact that tobacco and alcohol kill more people per year?

Fun fact- tobacco is actually the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

MAGA- UR RESPONSIBLE FOR UR OWN ACTIONS. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!

ALSO MAGA- We will spend lots of money murdering people abroad, because we don't believe people are responsible for what they do in the United States.

I will add that MAGA loves to talk made-up economics, but ignores economics when it comes to killing brown people. Ignoring the facts that we aren't actually targeting fentanyl, and the drugs at issue aren't actually coming to the United States ... it's almost like this is one of the most basic supply and demand issues ever. At most, we'd be looking at a marginal rise in prices, but because we aren't actually accomplishing anything, that's not even occurring.

FWIW- if we actually wanted to do a supply-side attack, there would be ways to at least try and do it more productively. Which we aren't doing. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would least affect prices. Obviously, the real solution would be to attack the demand side- but that would take sustained effort and wouldn't result in XY being able to cackle over brown people getting murdered.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Cocaine isn’t even dangerous and it’s not that addictive. In the 1970s in America people thought it was like marijuana. Crack is just stupid and according to Mr Pillow most people can’t smoke crack because it tastes or smells terrible…but if you can tolerate it and go for a second hit you will get addicted. On Hannity he didn’t seem to think cocaine was that big a deal while crack is just awful. Anyone that smokes crack or shoots heroin is suicidal…and they are most likely going to die. Denying everyone access to cocaine and opioids because junkies exist is like denying everyone guns because thugs exist.

[bloocow2]

Even if they were heading for America with drugs... arrest them! The punishment for carrying drugs is not death!

Like, if one of your local police forces went into a building in your town, summarily executed everyone in that building, and later said "oh but there were drugs in there", you wouldn't accept that!

...right?

[loki13]

Well, but the difference between that situation and what Trump is doing is ... you know .... this Administration never lies. So we can totally trust them!

Oh, wait ...

[grb]

And I can't understand why people actually believe this administration's "facts" after each new snuff porn video is posted. The clearest analogy is another event staged as a stunt: The disappearing of hundreds into a Central American gulag because they were "terrorist" members of Tren de Aragua.

It took only a few days of reporting to show that story was replete with lies. Trump just wanted warm bodies with brown skin for the photo op of them in chains or packed in a cage. He didn't give the slightest damn whether they were Tren de Aragua or not. This was clear even before he used a crudely doctored picture to "prove" Abrego Garcia was in a gang.

There were plenty of law enforcement personnel willing to round up people on little or no evidence to give upper management the photo op they demanded. I'm sure there are plenty of military personnel willing to blowup some little boat to give upper management the snuff porn they need for their political base's entertainment. Particularly because the corruption and rot is solidly entrenched at the top of DOD.

[loki13]

It's weird, isn't it, that you have nominally conservative people who insist you can't trust the government.

EXCEPT this government.

And they state that the government won't abuse its powers.

EXCEPT this government.

And that they know that LEO ... they might lie.

EXCEPT ICE and CBP.

The documented cases of ICE and CBP lying have been so widespread and documented that it's difficult to understand why any sane person believes a single thing they say at this point.

Also, FWIW, as I repeated earlier, it's pretty well-established that due to the "hiring boom," in ICE (don't know details about CBP) they are getting the worst of the worst right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, totally agree. The administration should not be doing this.

I might think that, as a matter of strict definition, bombing unflagged or falsely flagged ships is not a war crime. That shouldn't be taken to mean that I think the administration should be doing it.

There are a hell of a lot of things the government shouldn't do, that aren't war crimes.

[loki13]

"I might think that, as a matter of strict definition, bombing unflagged or falsely flagged ships is not a war crime."

Technically, it's murder. I've already linked to numerous law explainers on the topic that you've chosen to ignore.* The issue with the bombings is that they are violations of international law, military law (our own), and domestic law (murder).

Other than that, you're batting 1.000.

*Seriously, there is not a single expert or lawyer in the field that can justify these strikes. Not one. Even John "Torture is Good" Yoo has said that these are unlawful. Think about that- the guy who came up with the legal justification for torture has said that ... yeah, this is beyond the pale. So unless you've got some Brettlaw or you think that this is okay but for that terrible decision in Wickard, you need to back up your assertions.

[Brett Bellmore]

What "other than that"? I'm simply disputing the claim that they're a particular sort of wrong, not that they're wrong.

If I seem rather subdued about it, it's just because our government has been doing things that are wrongful for so long I'm kind of burnt out.

It's a pretty dark world out there if you're not blinding yourself to most of what the government does wrong.

[loki13]

Shorter Brett-

"Look, I know that I am seem strangely unmoved by a guy burning down orphanages, but that's just because I am so used to seeing people going 6 mph over the speed limit. Can you blame me?"

Also Brett-

"I am such a fan of the Constitution as I imagine it to be, and so angry over the way people I think have mistreated it in the past, that I just can't be bothered to be angry about a person right now literally pissing on it right in front of me while saying he doesn't care 'bout no steenkin' Constitution."

I mean, I'm not even mad. Honestly, I'm impressed! How did you manage to eat a whole wheel of cheese with all of that wine whine?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Look, I know that I am seem strangely unmoved by a guy burning down orphanages,"

Hey, I still remember how strangely unmoved the left were over the Branch Davidian being burned alive, to say nothing of a vital pharmaceutical plant in Sudan being blown up, so don't give me that shit.

I mean this seriously: Our government does so much evil stuff that anybody with the capacity to recognize evil when they see it would either go nuts or numb. And our government is one of the better ones in that regard!

[Sarcastr0]

No. Fuck this.

What a tool your cynicism is to your personal corruption, claiming the whole of the nations laws are broken and fraudulent, and thus we are all excused to indulge in supporting whatever sins we wish—for what’s a little more unfairness, in this unfair world?

/from the book Tainted Cup somewhat paraphrased.

[loki13]

Waco was 1993, Brett.
The bombing in Sudan was 1998.

You're really reaching now for your whaddabout, but also proving my point.

FWIW, you probably forget this ... but...

1. Regardless of your feelings about Waco (seriously, there is so much conspiracy theory stupidness about it I don't want to engage), the government went through a lot of review of its practices and procedures. The FBI went through massive changes (to emphasize negotiation and effectiveness in high-risk situations) and changed training programs. There was a Special Counsel who investigated the matter- and while the report largely exonerated the government from the wacky conspiracy theories, it correctly disciplined government employees who engaged in any misconduct (obstruction).

While the ATF Director also resigned afterwards (correctly) I'm certainly not going to say that he was blameless.

In short- it was a tragedy. But also? You might want to look up revolutionary suicide (see, e.g., Jim Jones) and think about it.

2. Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the plant in Sudan due to ties with Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and al-Qaeda, under the belief that it was manufacturing VX nerve gas. You probably forgot it was part of a larger strike- I assume you don't object to the attack on Afghan training camps of al-Qaeda that we did on the same day? I might be wrong.

Anyway, the evidence was from a CIA covert op. But ... it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The Bush Administration later stated that it was used to produce WMD as well before the 9/11 Commission (despite ... yeah).

Personally, I think it was bad intelligence, even though two different administrations have backed it. I don't think it was evil, in the sense of knowingly violating human rights and the laws of war. I think it was, however, incredibly careless. The attack not only destroyed a pharmaceutical plant (which is important for a place like Sudan), it also killed a civilian.

Remember when killing people was bad? Bad enough that you just mentioned it? Even though, in that case, it was because we actually believed (even if it was incorrect) that it was used by al Qaeda to manufacture nerve gas?

[Magister]

Hmm. So, which of the following is true of Brett Bellmore?
1. Brett lacks the capacity to recognize evil when he sees it. (He insists often that he is recognizing evil, but it may be a Dunning-Kruger thing.)
2. Brett has gone nuts. (His extravagant conspiracy theories might be evidence for this one.)
3. Brett has gone numb. (This seems inconsistent with his frequent outraged posts; at best a very selective numbness.)
4. His statement "Our government does so much evil stuff" is wrong.
5. His statement "anybody with the capacity to recognize evil when they see it would either go nuts or numb" is wrong.

(If it is #2, please seek help, Brett.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Torture was never the issue—eliciting false confessions was the issue. Putting a detainee in a comfortable living room with a bunch of puppies with the goal of eliciting a false confession is just as bad as cutting off a toe to get a false confession…and both make America less safe in a myriad of ways.

[David Nieporent]

Like, if one of your local police forces went into a building in your town, summarily executed everyone in that building, and later said "oh but there were drugs in there", you wouldn't accept that!

If the victims were dark skinned, they absolutely would accept it.

[Michael P]

How many billions of dollars in fraud did Tim Walz enable? At what point do you admit that he is morally stunted and incompetent to carry out the duties entrusted to him?

https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-fraud-charges-fbad68312012dc02a4060852474f72ee

As previously discussed, you refuse to spend a few words to show that you have the standards of a normal, decent person in regard to political derangement. I am not impressed by your continued trolling.

[Malika la Maize]

Whataboutism!

And a poor one. Trump directly used the language noted, Mike Q@A responds with “but, but, look at what the VP nominee of the other party *enabled*!!”

I know it’s hard swearing fealty to the Mad King but that’s pathetic!

[Michael P]

It's not whataboutism to point out that Walz makes developmentally disabled people look good in comparison. People long ago stopped using "retard" to refer to the developmentally impaired, and your sad devotion to conflating meanings is a typical affliction of leftism.

[Malika la Maize]

lol “when Trump said nigger he didn’t mean it in the racist way because people stopped using it that way long ago, he meant it in the generic rude person way!”

Witness ye folk the contortions of those who sacrifice basic human decency to serving the Mad King!

[Malika la Maize]

I mean, I get it at some sad level. Mikie Q&A knows at some basic level that calling political opponents retards and traitors and making gloating comments about murder victims is all wrong.

But he’s sworn total, base fealty to this Mad King, and that selling out requires him, in his mind to try anything to desperately defend the actions of this terrible Dear Leader.

It’s so tough to lick the boots when their owner keeps stomping in shit. But Mikie Q&A will be there, tongue out and waiting!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Define "crime."

Some consider the Federal Government to be a criminal conspiracy.

🙂

[Krayt]

Baby steps.

Fundamental Theorem of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

...since some guys picked up clubs and went to a farmer trading post and demanded they pay their fair share. Actually, it probably long preceded that, and it was born of local thuggery who could best kill the competition and then invented the word "king". There's no clear dividing line between Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan and some elder in a village hut with a lot of sons issuing commands.

[Sarcastr0]

Still jumping that crazy theory, eh?

Like you read Atlas Shrugged and your reaction was ‘hold my beer.’

Do you even acknowledge liberalism and the enlightenment?

[Bwaaah]

They didn't override human instinct, nor the gratification many get from prevailing over others.

[Malika la Maize]

Vivek Ramaswamy

There are two competing visions now emerging on the American right, and they are incompatible. One vision of American identity is based on lineage, blood and soil: Inherited attributes matter most. The purest form of an American is a so-called heritage American — one whose ancestry traces back to the founding of the United States or earlier.

This view is now popularized by the Groyper right, a rapidly ascendant online movement that argues for the creation of a white-centric identity. This is a predictable response — one that I anticipated in my 2022 book, “Nation of Victims” — to anti-white discrimination over the last half-decade, and it is no longer just a fringe viewpoint.

The alternative (and, in my view, correct) vision of American identity is based on ideals.

Americanness isn’t a scalar quality that varies based on your ancestry. It’s binary: Either you’re an American or you’re not. You are an American if you believe in the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the U.S. Constitution, in the American dream, and if you are a citizen who swears exclusive allegiance to our nation.

As Ronald Reagan quipped, you can go to live in France, but you can’t become a Frenchman; but anyone from any corner of the world can come to live in the United States and become an American. No matter your ancestry, if you wait your turn and obtain citizenship, you are every bit as American as a Mayflower descendant, as long as you subscribe to the creed of the American founding and the culture that was born of it. This is what makes American exceptionalism possible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/opinion/republican-identity-divide.html

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yep, Trump has the shallowest American roots of any president in history…and 4 of his 5 children have even shallower roots with 3 being anchors for the foreign con artist Ivana. Lineage would disqualify every Trump but Tiffany!

[hobie]

Lot of Slavik/Russo blood running through them Trumps. Brings genetic affection for the motherland

[David Nieporent]

The one thing I object to in Ramaswamy's op/ed is the word "quipped." Reagan was not quipping; he was entirely serious and making an important point about the distinction between propositional America and blood-and-soil nations. (And he did not single out France, either.)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J5upAEZOchM

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing about a propositional America, is that while anyone can become an American if they subscribe to the proposition, not everyone will subscribe to the proposition, and become more than a nominal American.

Both concepts of nationality exclude as much as they include.

[Sarcastr0]

Above you call everyone in northern Virginia undesirables.

Your fellow countrymen.

And here you talk about immigrants who don't buy into the ideals of America.

You seem to have a pretty narrow view of who counts as an American who isn't an undesirable.

Your America seems built primarily about who to exclude, and who to denigrate.

Maybe you shouldn't talk about policing who buys into the American proposition, since you seem kind of shit at it.

[grb]

Hell, I wouldn't even bother giving Brett that much credit. Instead, I'd note that Brett's politician forefathers made the exact same assertion about the:

1. Irish
2. Italians
3. Jews
4. Germans
5. Chinese
6. Japanese

And many other groups to boot. And guess what? Brett's politician forefathers were wrong. Not one time. Not most of the time. But every single time.

They were wrong. every. single. time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your fellow countrymen."

He just means all the government employees and the lobbyist/lawyer Remoras.

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is that nationality evolves. This is true anywhere in the world, but more so in the United States which is made up of so many different nationalities. Some immigrants will be slow to take up American values, but this will usually only last for their own lifetime. The children of immigrants typical adjust rapidly to America. The place to look for adoption of American national values in not necessarily the immigrant but rather their prodigy.

[Sarcastr0]

Though if you talk to immigrants, plenty of them put us to shame in their enthusiasm about this country and it's ideals of freedom and opportunity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure: Some of the most patriotic Americans are immigrants, because they're Americans by choice, not accident. They saw America as a great thing they wanted to be part of, they embraced the proposition.

Some of the least patriotic Americans are immigrants, too, because America is nothing to them but an advantageous place to be. They didn't care a bit about the proposition.

I'm simply pointing out that, no matter HOW you define being an American, by birth or by ethos, not everybody is going to be one.

[loki13]

"I'm simply pointing out that, no matter HOW you define being an American, by birth or by ethos, not everybody is going to be one."

And as many others have pointed out, what Reagan said was something that should resonate, because it is a message that goes back to the framing. The concept of "American," was something that came about not by blood (like Europe) but by choice. It was created not from a specific blood, but from numerous peoples who came here and made their own way.

...which, admittedly, does a disservice to the actual Native Americans. But it's not like your Nativist anti-immigration beliefs are kind to them, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't have nativist anti-immigration beliefs in the first place, to be kind or cruel to them.

I'm in favor of immigration. I keep saying that, and I mean it.

I just take the position that our nation's immigration policies have to be relentlessly focused on being beneficial to already existing US citizens, not on the benefit to the immigrants. And that's NOT going to be zero immigration, not remotely.

But it IS going to be very selective immigration.

[Moderation4ever]

We know from numerous studies that immigration is beneficial to this country. What we have are nativist, like you, that chose to only see negative things.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reading and comprehension: FAIL.

[Brett Bellmore]

We know that "immigration" is beneficial in some ways, less so in others, and if you want to maximize the benefits and minimize the downsides, you need it to be selective immigration.

[Sarcastr0]

That's such a broad and anodyne statement it's almost a tautology.

We know that your definition of 'selective' and your take on 'less beneficial' are where the nativism comes in.

It doesn't stop there, of course. You got issues with the risks associated with Muslim American citizens as well.

Collective guilt.

[Mr. Bumble]

"We", the Royal We or like Notsoimportant do you feel free to speak for everyone?
Douches rule!

[Krayt]

Their kids are always -- always -- fully American video game playing fatasses.

U S A! U S A!

We're winning, too! The rest of the world is becoming like this! Cultural imperialism!

[bernard11]

not everyone will subscribe to the proposition, and become more than a nominal American.

Bear in mind that some might disagree with you as to what the proposition is.

[hobie]

Yes, Vivek - being unchallenged - has dropped all the QAnon stuff and is presenting to us Ohioans as a perfectly sane, middle-of-the-road, kinda guy.

[bernard11]

The purest form of an American is a so-called heritage American — one whose ancestry traces back to the founding of the United States or earlier.

Well, won't those groypers, and a lot of other people, including JD Vance, be surprised when they find out how many African-Americans turn out to be "heritage Americans?"

Bet they won't be yelling for special privileges then.

[Commenter_XY]

You are not the selection committee. You are the welcoming committee.

What a great blog post, I LOL'ed at that line. It is so true. I had a similar situation in my life where a friends child chose a spouse we (or our friends) would not have selected. I bet some of you have had the same experience.

How do you prevent estrangement? Since their marriage, they see much less and hear much less from their child and his spouse. It isn't hostility or animus, but a definite cooling. It hurts.

For those of you that have dealt with this, what did you do (passive acceptance isn't happening in this case)? What worked and what failed?

One final note: Make Arranged Marriages Great Again! 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

"I bet some of you have had the same experience."

I had the same experience from the other side: My mother and sister took an immediate dislike to my fiancee the first time I got married.

Within a year she'd cleaned me out and divorced me. So I guess their judgement was much better than mine.

[Frank Drackman]

Those DSL's will get you every time.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Poontang clouds a man’s judgement.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I said on an earlier Open Thread:
Poontang, is there anything it can't do (or get men to do)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Feh, didn't take that. I was lonely and socially awkward, and when the first girl to actually act friendly towards me suddenly got all serious and asked if our relationship was going anywhere, I panicked and proposed, just as she'd intended.

Then she divorced me as soon as I refinanced the house to pay off her credit card debt.

[Magister]

"just as she'd intended" -- When SarcastrO infers someone's motivations, he's usually met with derisive accusations of attempting telepathy. I harbor doubts that someone who was socially awkward would be able to discern someone else's intent in hindsight powered by so much resentment.

[Michael P]

It doesn't take mind-reading to tell that you're being an asshole by play-acting an Internet psychologist.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When SarcastrO infers someone's motivations, he's usually met with derisive accusations of attempting telepathy."

LOL! Sarcastr0's the one who's usually accusing people of telepathy, (Because they refuse to ignore inconvenient evidence, usually.) not being accused of it.

When you've been dating a girl for six months, and then she suddenly shows up at your house without warning, and asks you what she is to you, is this relationship actually going somewhere, it doesn't take a Vulcan mind meld to figure out she wants a proposal. Even people with Aspergers aren't THAT dense.

[loki13]

Or maybe ... you might remember that you have Asperger's, and perhaps you don't actually know what the motivations were, and have retconned a story of your life that makes you the hero, and other people villains?

Heck, here's an alternate take based just on the facts as you present them-
Girl (for whatever reason) likes you. After six months of dating, girl reasonably asks you if the relationship is going anywhere. Because you have Asperger's, you take that question as an ultimatum, and you panic and immediately propose. Because this is awkward, she says, "Yes."

You get married and life is going on. But ... because you have Asperger's, she isn't get much ... emotional engagement, and the marriage ends.

Seems reasonable to me. But I wasn't there. I do know that casting yourself as a victim (to your ex-wife, to Canada) doesn't really help you in life. I mean ... there are actual victims. I'd hate to be Sudan right now ... I think people there might plausibly be able to play the victim card. But it really sounds like you are trying to justify going to the dark side, my friend. Maybe listen to Yoda?

[Mr. Bumble]

What part does Madam X play in your formulation?
She couldn't have slowed things down?

[Brett Bellmore]

She entered the marriage with over $20K in credit card debt.

She left the marriage a year later, debt free and with the contents of our joint savings accounts, emptied out right after our joint income tax refund check cleared.

So, yeah, I think I was the victim there, even if the world has worse victims.

[John 4]

Once a mark, always a mark, eh?

[not guilty]

I am curious, Brett. Were you represented by counsel in the divorce proceedings? Or did instead you have a fool for a client?

[bernard11]

I think it is unfair to pile onto Brett for what was obviously a very difficult event in his life.

Yes, we have his side, and not his ex-wife's, which may differ. But it is not a good idea to imagine the ex's case, and berate Brett over our conjectures.

Look, I yell at and insult Brett as much as anyone, but I still think personal matters should be off-limits. If you don't believe him, ignore his comment.

[Absaroka]

+1 to Bernard's comment.

I (sadly!) know of 4 divorces where I have enough inside info to assign blame. Two where the husbands have 100% of the blame, and two where the wives have 100% of the blame.

Heh. And one where I expect both are to blame, as in the same two people were married and divorced - to each other - 5 times.

"I don't like Brett's politics so the divorce must be his fault" is a bad look.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you might remember that you have Asperger's"

Brett, this is why you should never reveal anything personal here. A-holes like loki don't recognize boundaries if they hate you.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s worse to be from Ohio imho.

[Magister]

Yes, SarcastrO tends to be accused of "vibes" rather than telepathy; my error.

loki13 captures my point more effectively and with a referral to Yoda; +1.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, immigrants will do jobs that American citizens find distasteful.

Such as marrying Donald Trump or marrying Brett Bellmore.

[Mr. Bumble]

You need help! Maybe make an appointment with Qualika for some sessions.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, if you had a sister or a daughter, would you want her marrying a Dunning-Kruger misanthrope like Brett?

[Mr. Bumble]

Doubling down only re-enforces my comment that you need help.
How's your married life?

[not guilty]

Your avoiding my question is quite conspicuous, Bumble. And my married life is none of your business.

[Mr. Bumble]

One of your most annoying traits is your incessant demand that people answer your questions.
But to make you happy; if I had an unmarried sister or daughter
I would rather they marry Brett rather than a misanthropic, misogynist, mentally ill gnome like you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"misanthropic, misogynist, mentally ill gnome"

You forgot racist

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And my married life is none of your business."

That's right. NG's married life is no one's business but his own. Apparently, there are no countries that anyone wants to leave that badly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"my married life is none of your business."

Brett's is though.

[Joe_dallas]

NG
" As I have said before, immigrants will do jobs that American citizens find distasteful.
Such as marrying Donald Trump or marrying Brett Bellmore."

not guilty 49 minutes ago
"Mr. Bumble, if you had a sister or a daughter, would you want her marrying a Dunning-Kruger misanthrope like Brett?"

Seek help - you have become a complete deranged asshole

[Bob from Ohio]

Most of the left here hates Brett so much, irrationally so.

[Joe_dallas]

The hates stems from leftists irrational hatred of common sense, logic and rational thought.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey NG, what was the status of your law license before you went on disability?

[Malika la Maize]

What does this have to do with anything we’re discussing here?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Discussions evolve. Please try to keep up.

Waiting, NG.

[Malika la Maize]

Ok, they evolve. You still haven’t answered my question. Your thumb injured?

[Joe_dallas]

TwelveInchPianist 1 hour ago
"Waiting, NG."

Typical NG - demands that people respond to his questions, yet when he states something very ugly - he goes radio silent. he lacks a moral compass

[not guilty]

When I challenge someone to answer my questions, it is because such questions are germane to the topic of discussion -- most often calling for another commenter to provide support for an inane or insipid comment that he has made.

When I make an assertion, I am pleased to back it up. That is why I ordinarily cite applicable legal authorities and original source materials where available.

How many of my critics can say the same?

[Joe_dallas]

Your commentary has been extremely vile and hateful today. Twelve asked you for an explanation of why you delved in such hateful and vile commentary.

You still havent provided a response.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still waiting, NG.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s an inappropriate and irrelevant question and you know it.

Don’t choose to be a dick.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Don’t choose to be a dick."

Maybe admonish "not guilty" too?

Nah, he got personal about Brett, who you irrationality hate.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, he can be a dick as well. I endorse grb’s comment below.

But he’s not posting just to be a dick like TiP is.

Comments purely for empty bullying are more the conservative side of the street around here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But he’s not posting just to be a dick like TiP is."

What reason then for insulting Brett like he did?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still waiting.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. It's funny to see you go low, and still, he/they can't seem to rise above that. And you sound soooo like NG as you tug him.

[grb]

not guilty : "Such as marrying Donald Trump or marrying Brett Bellmore."

Sigh. Just a smidge too much IMHO. (And that's from someone who's said many a reprehensible thing myself)

[loki13]

Agreed. Don't get me wrong- I think I'm pretty harsh on Brett's ideas, takes, and consistency.

But I genuinely think that if we met in person and weren't talking politics, we'd get along great.

Most people here (I hope, at least) are not the sum of their heated internet opinions.

[not guilty]

Dealing with Brett and his ilk calls to mind the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

Men are four;
He who knows and knows not that he knows. He is asleep; wake him.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not. He is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not. He is a child; teach him.
He who knows and knows that he knows. He is a king; follow him.

(Emphasis added.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Could it be?
Might the outflow of residents to other climes include Da Bears?
Will Jabba the Pricktzer's failed government usher in the Indiana Bears?

[grb]

Could it be Bumble's off his meds?

(inquiring minds wanna know)

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes you have a mind rather than a hive mind.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/18/gov-jb-pritzker-draws-line-bears-flirt-indiana-move/
"The team’s exploration of relocating to Northwest Indiana from storied Soldier Field instead of a new stadium in the Chicago area has dominated local headlines and sports radio chatter, thrusting the Democratic governor into a high-stakes fight over a franchise that has been synonymous with Chicago for more than a century."

[grb]

I have to confess I hadn't heard that. But playing catchup, I learn this has nothing to do with any "outflow of residents" or "Jabba the Pricktzer's failed government". That's just the meds talking (or lack thereof).

Instead it's just another billionaire shakedown. Sports-wise, the oldest game around....

[Mr. Bumble]

"I have to confess I hadn't heard that."
...and so you discount it and infer I hallucinated it?
Nice to live in a bubble.

[grb]

Well, to be frank, it was written as crazy-person-talk. Still, I'm at fault for not reaching elbow-deep into the pile of excrement and feeling around for a tiny hard kernel of truth.

I herein promise to note your piles of excrement much more diligently in the future! However I still reserve the right to step around them whenever possible to preserve the soles of my shoes and tightly hold my nose always.

(Whew! It feels good to get that mea culpa off my chest!)

[Mr. Bumble]

The article spells out the reasons Da Bears are hinting at moving (and yes all sports teams play this game) and that Jabba is playing tough.

[grb]

Good for (holding my nose to play along) "Jabba". Four Points:

1. Billionaires holding a city's beloved sports team hostage with a gun to the team's head ain't a charming look.

2. And usually the threat is all bluff. Of course occasionally you get an Irsay who moves the organization out of town in the dark of the night. I still remember news accounts of a Baltimore native arrested for pissing on his grave. Sounds First Amendmenty to me!

3. The Indiana Bears? Nonstarter all the way. Bluff likely.

4. Now let's be honest: A Trump cultie like yourself sneering at another pol for being flabby is many things at once, none good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Compared to Jabba, rump looks like Charles Atlas.
Wonder how Da Bears players would feel about the move with an income tax rate in Indiana 1/2 of that in Illinois.

[Bob from Ohio]

Both "NYC" teams play in New Jersey.

[Nelson]

I would say Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker (and, incidentally, the Arlington Heights government) have made the absolute right decision in refusing government money to pay for a stadium. If Indiana wants to pay for a stadium, the team will go there for certain.

This has been a years-long saga where the Bears keep trying to get the public to pay for their new stadium with various tactics to raise pressure on the government (like buying the Arlington Raceway) and the government standing firm in their refusal.

NW Indiana is less than a half hour from Soldier Field. They certainly aren’t going to change the name to the Indiana Bears. Hopefully Pritzker, Johnson, and Arlington Heights stay the course.

[bloocow2]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-18/albanese-announces-tougher-hate-speech-laws-after-bondi-terror/106157020

So, this is what I feared might happen. We have anti vilification and hate speech laws already, and that's problematic enough, but extending them is not going to be good for us. And the opposition is saying shit like we should be banning pro-palestine protests, because... why? Because they're critical of Israel, and that means antisemitic, and that means they'll lead to further massacres of Jewish people? I'm not buying it.

None of which is to say that I approve of antisemitism or racism; from my brief time here, I hope I've established my credentials in this regard! But I don't like the government getting involved in this.

[Malika la Maize]

+1

[Bob from Ohio]

"Because they're critical of Israel"

No, because they are pro-palestine so that means antisemitic, and that means they'll lead to further massacres of Jewish people. There are pictures of both shooters at the infamous "gas the jews" "protest".

The October 7 pogrom wasn't that far ago either.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, are you in favor of hate speech laws, but only for antisemitic speech?

[Bob from Ohio]

Just correcting his dumb statement.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"No, because they are pro-palestine so that means antisemitic."

Palestinians are human beings that deserve to be treated with the dignity that all humans deserve to be treated with.

Is this an antisemitic statement?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, that, and only that, is said at pro-palestine marches. Good job!

[LawTalkingGuy]

“No, because they are pro-palestine so that means antisemitic.”

You said this without any caveat. And I notice you didn’t answer the question.

So now you either have to 1) admit that you misspoke and acknowledge that being pro-Palestine does not automatically equate to antisemitism. 2) claim that any recognition of the human worth of Palestinians is itself antisemitic revealing you to be a bigoted monster or 3) puss out, not answer the question, and leave your real feelings as an exercise to the reader where they’d be justifying in assuming it’s 2).

[Bob from Ohio]

The context was "pro-palestine protests". All of them are about Jew hating.

"Globalize the Intifada" and wearing those Nazi-like terror scarfs does not mean "Palestinians are human beings that deserve to be treated with the dignity that all humans deserve to be treated with."

[LawTalkingGuy]

So it’s 3. Got it.

[Bob from Ohio]

I answered your question,

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. You didn’t.

I’ll ask again:

Is the phrase, “Palestinians are human beings that deserve to be treated with the dignity that all humans deserve to be treated with” antisemitic?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s the every accusation is a confession thing. Bob’s the guy complaining about “anti-semitism” when he’s plainly bigoted against Palestinians.

[loki13]

By the way, I don't often mention this ...

but there is a sizeable (SIZEABLE) contingent of Palestinian Christians. I've known a lot of them.

[Sarcastr0]

See, this shit is so lame it’s why unlike some of the dumber bigots around here I tend to think you are performing more than sincere.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing lame about it.

[Malika la Maize]

He’s strutting his bigotry!

[Sarcastr0]

There’s sincere bigots on here. You are so into being edgy and then try hard dropping groaners like terror scarfs….

I dunno man, you seem like a wannabe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"terror scarfs"

Can't spell the word they use.

Arafat, a terrorist, started the widespread use of it. So my term fits.

Its the 21st century version of the Nazi armband, it says you want Jews to die.

[Malika la Maize]

Any pro-Palestine = anti-semitism?

Sound like Bob.

[Davedave]

What a stupid argument. In practice, people who claim they're pro-Palestinian are vanishingly rarely actually pro-Palestinian. They're antisemites who have found a socially acceptable outlet for their hate.

[Nelson]

“ they are pro-palestine so that means antisemitic”

Those are not the same thing. Life isn’t binary and zero-sum.

[dwb68]

Socialized medicine + assisted suicide = the state gets to decide whether you are too expensive to treat, live, or die.

I mean, New York's assisted suicide law will definitely bring down the cost of health care, since the most expensive care tends to be end-of-life treatment for cancer, etc. I am sure those doctors on the state payroll wont pressure people to kill themselves, or anything.

Here's an idea... let's euthanize people if and only if they've been convicted of killing or raping another person.

[Malika la Maize]

This is a neat trick slavers do: “sure it looks like people’s autonomy has been increased by allowing a possible choice but what if they’re pressured!!!!”

Fuck off slaver. In a free society you own your body and life. You should be able to freely contract with a medical professional who is willing to end that. I get you think the state owns your life but this is a step in the right direction.

Here’s an idea for free people: let’s euthanize everyone who *asks for it!*

[Michael P]

In Malicia World, wanting the government to not have incentives to push vulnerable people to "assisted suicide" makes one a "slaver".

The person who needs to fuck off here is not dwb68.

[Malika la Maize]

“push vulnerable people”

The language of patronizing slavers. People might feel pressured to make the “wrong” decision so we will take the choice away, for their own good!

Remember btw this is the same guy who swears absolute fealty to a POTUS who makes fun of disabled people. He’s truly worried about pressuring the vulnerable!

[ThePublius]

Precisely. There are many vulnerable people, psychologically vulnerable, who can be convinced, coerced, pressured, etc.,[1] to ask for it, and we have a duty as a society to protect them. There should be no legal assisted suicide except in cases of people with incurable and painful fatal diseases where death is on the foreseeable horizon.

[1] such pressure could come from a spouse, a sibling, an heir, a love interest, bullying, and so on. The elderly are particularly vulnerable in this case.

[Malika la Maize]

Of course Mister “It’s Great To Tax Imports, You Don’t Need Such Cheap Beef, Eat Chicken Instead!” is in favor. Slavers gonna slave!

[ThePublius]

You're a jerk. I never said that quoted text. And it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, nor does calling me a slaver.

[Malika la Maize]

You never said that if beef is expensive try some other meat?

[ThePublius]

I may have suggested something along those lines, but I'm pretty certain that sentence you quote, as if it's a direct quote, is something I never wrote.

But be that as it may, what on earth does it have to do with the matter at hand???

[Malika la Maize]

It’s evidence that you are a big government slaver. You love government forcing people to make choices you approve of.

[ThePublius]

Malika la Maize 43 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What does this have to do with anything we’re discussing here?

[Malika la Maize]

Malika la Maize 2 minutes ago
It’s evidence that you are a big government slaver. You love government forcing people to make choices you approve of.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. And it still has nothing to do with my comment on assisted suicide. You're just an annoying troll.

[Malika la Maize]

Is it? You love federal taxation on imports and tell people who suffer from it to just change their purchases. You love the government prohibiting a person from choosing to end their life with the assistance of a willing doctor. You’re a slaver, you love government power over others.

[ThePublius]

"You love the government prohibiting a person from choosing to end their life with the assistance of a willing doctor."

You're completely ignoring the rationale I expressed for opposing this. Or perhaps the nuance escapes you. It's to protect the vulnerable and innocent. Vulnerable people can be talked into this, as is evidenced by the cases of people being talked into suicide at their own hand (and occasionally the influencer going to jail). Moms with a touch of dementia who are perceived as a burden on their children, and standing in the way of an inheritance. And so on. Don't you get that?

[Malika la Maize]

Slavers love patronizing arguments. You’re restricting their choices for their own good, we get it.

[Absaroka]

"It's to protect the vulnerable and innocent. Vulnerable people can be talked into this, as is evidenced by the cases of people being talked into suicide at their own hand (and occasionally the influencer going to jail). Moms with a touch of dementia who are perceived as a burden on their children, and standing in the way of an inheritance"

On the one hand: WA had an initiative some years ago, and polling said the primary opposition was elderly folks who thought their kids might want to give them the heave ho.

OTOH: I'm old enough to have seen a number of relatives die. The worst were two cases of Alzheimers.

There are certainly people who would rather live as many years as possible, even if that means years in the memory care unit. I am not one of those people - there are fates worse than death, and (to me - YMMV!) that is one of them. I will, as the saying goes, fight to the death to ensure your right to live in diapers in a wheelchair locked in the memory care unit as long as you like. But as a matter of basic human decency, I ask that you allow me to be in control my own life, as you wish to be in control of your own life.

Policy proposal: WA has a program where people who think they might misuse a gun can ask to be put on the prohibited persons list, so they can't buy a gun. It is easy to get on - you just ask - and hard to get off. I don't recall the details, but you have to make multiple notarized requests over an extended period or something like that.

So do something similar with a Death with Dignity list. To get on it you have jump through a lot of hoops, waiting periods, whatever. Getting off - back to the default of 'do everything' - is easy. Also have a Do Everything list that is easy to get on but hard to leave, so parents who don't trust their children can get on it and then forget some step of the complicated process to get off. Or just make it flat irrevocable.That seems like people with either set of preferences could get what they want.

(as an aside, it seems very sad that so many parents don't seem to trust their children. Those seem like they must be profoundly unhappy relationships - 'My wonderful loving children are the biggest joy in my life, but I worry they would slip me the needle if they could'. Yikes.)

[Malika la Maize]

You're completely ignoring the rationale I expressed for opposing this.

Nope, I’ve acknowledged all along that like most slavers you’re for taking away other people’s choices for what you see as their own good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you're disabled can need a wheelchair ramp? Sorry, we can't do that.

But things are really bad without a wheelchair ramp? Here's what we can do...

[Malika la Maize]

He trots out that sad single example again.

And think about this, he really thinks a customer service rep telling a person this has forced her to suicide!

[ThePublius]

It's a good example. Can you imagine? It's hard to believe this really happened, but it did.

[Malika la Maize]

Pubes likes to restrict autonomy generally based on an anecdote.

It’s almost Lin he was poised to restrict autonomy from the beginning!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He trots out that sad single example again."

So unfair at with everything you've accomplished, all anybody remembers is that one incident with the goat, amirite?

[Malika la Maize]

lol, he doubles down on his one!

Also, at with?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m genuinely curious as to why you need this rando one example in this argument so much.

Do you genuinely generally think the state owns your life?

Do you genuinely worry about people being “pushed” to take this alternative? This “pushing” would be more than a rando bureaucrat customer service rep telling someone they can’t have a wheelchair or something, right? I mean, is that your general policy on healthcare or other policy?

Is it a weird need to be in alignment with others on the current American right? Maybe you’re one of them, Catholic or something?

[dwb68]

You sound mentally ill. The doctor says: 15 grams of Pentobarbitol should calm you down.

Yikes! You do realize we've seen this movie, right? Give me your tired, your poor, your mentally ill, and lets inject them. -- not Margaret Sanger, am I rite?

[Malika la Maize]

Why do you hate autonomy? Is it in acquiescence to moral majority comrades or are you one of them?

[dwb68]

Autonomy is fine; but the state and insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to push people towards assisted suicide to cut costs. Doctors largely acquiesce to groupthink and their financial backers.

[Malika la Maize]

They might be pushed!!!

So let’s restrict their autonomy here, to the default you’d like!

Fuck off, slaver!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fuck off, slaver!"

Why are you aping libertarian lingo here? You aren't one.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m pretty darned close.

[Sarcastr0]

we've seen this movie, right?

You doing policy based on movies that aren't even real now?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just an expression.

Free Dictionary: One has witnessed or endured a similar or identical situation before.

You are just becoming increasingly un-sufferable.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Geez. Next you'll be basing policy on rodeos.

[not guilty]

"Socialized medicine + assisted suicide = the state gets to decide whether you are too expensive to treat, live, or die."

Uh, no. Decriminalizing "assisted suicide" promotes personal autonomy and self-determination. It is the individual, and not the government, making the choice there.

[Mr. Bumble]

You don't think socialized medicine's inability to treat physical and mental illnesses in a timely manner might push someone toward ending their life?

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t think people in whatever system should be allowed to choose this?

[Mr. Bumble]

Choose to mutilate children or choose to be mutilated?

[Malika la Maize]

We’re talking about adults here, you’ve heard of them?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Choose to mutilate children or choose to be mutilated?"
Wrong place. Was meant for "gender affirming care".

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, wrong place.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 5 minutes ago
"Uh, no. Decriminalizing "assisted suicide" promotes personal autonomy and self-determination. It is the individual, and not the government, making the choice there."

A defense lawyer defending the guilty yet Consistently in favor of killing the innocent. Serious whiplash with taking the the moral high ground!

[Malika la Maize]

Of course jd doesn’t get consent and autonomy.

[Joe_dallas]

The baby doesnt give his or her consent to get murdered. Of course neither you or NG grasps that basic concept

[Malika la Maize]

We’re talking about adults here, not zygotes. Interesting you conflate the two.

[Joe_dallas]

we are not talking about zygotes - you and NG knows that -

Your comment shows you have similar deranged moral and ethical standards as NG

[Malika la Maize]

Holy crap, my comment was we *aren’t* talking about zygotes!

You’re incredibly dumb!

[Joe_dallas]

The only dumb person here is the one that cant follow the entire conversation.

[Malika la Maize]

Joe_dallas 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
not guilty 5 minutes ago
"Uh, no. Decriminalizing "assisted suicide" promotes personal autonomy and self-determination. It is the individual, and not the government, making the choice there."

A defense lawyer defending the guilty yet Consistently in favor of killing the innocent. Serious whiplash with taking the moral high ground!

Joe_dallas 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The baby doesnt give his or her consent to get murdered. Of course neither you or NG grasps that basic concept

[Joe_dallas]

Thanks for demonstrating you cant follow the conversation

[Malika la Maize]

As usual he’s got nothing.

[not guilty]

"A defense lawyer defending the guilty yet Consistently in favor of killing the innocent. Serious whiplash with taking the the [sic] moral high ground!"

A criminal defense colleague of mine said it best when he proclaimed, "I've never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some there."

My personal opinion as to guilt or innocence of anyone I represented was irrelevant. The decision to risk going to trial or to accept a non-trial disposition if proffered is always that of the accused. In the sliver of cases that actually go to trial, if the prosecution could not prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, by admissible evidence, the accused deserves to keep his liberty. A criminal trial works best at making such determinations when both sides are vigorously represented.

As to the morality of abortion, I don't approve of abortion in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, such as conception resulting from rape or incest, a serious threat to maternal health or fetal abnormality which is inconsistent with a meaningful life. Again however, my personal opinion is irrelevant unless and until a female facing or contemplating pregnancy asks me for advice, and my advice then deserves only such weight as she chooses to give it.

That having been said, my opinion regarding whether the government should make decisions for a pregnant female is an entirely different matter. I would never advise someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy, "I'm sorry, dear, but you are incompetent to decide whether to carry your pregnancy to term. Go ask the governor and do whatever he says."

As to the end of life decision, suicide can be a rational choice for a terminally ill patient depending on individual circumstances, just as authorizing attempts to prolong life can be a rational choice.

The thread common to all of these issues is that the affected individuals are better suited to make their own choices than the government.

[loki13]

Ugh. That has to be the worst take, ever.

Moving to your instant claim (a new "death panel" claim)- I think that assisted suicide is a really tough issue. I am going to put aside those with moral objections overall- IMO, if that's your belief, you never have to engage. You can insist that it's against God, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, or you'll end up like the unfortunate's in Dante's Second Ring, or whatever. That's not a policy argument. More importantly, it denigrates the lived experiences and the rights to dignity of suffering people (which you do not have to agree with, but you certainly don't have to accept).

It's complicated. If you've had a loved family member in true end-of-life care, you can understand that there are times when ... there is no hope, there is nothing but more pain (and a horizon of continued pain that will increase), and no hope that things will get better. Where all that can be done is to ease the last days, weeks, or months. And if you've talked to hospice workers, you know that they've all had to deal with the same questions- why does it have to go on like this?

Then again, do I want someone to be able to check in to a Suicide Booth because Liz in Accounting turned them down for a date? No. I agree that this is something that (if it is to be allowed by the state) needs to have medical supervision, safeguards, and signoffs to ensure that it is restrictively, not permissively.

This is not an easy issue; but your lack of empathy that is employed for petty partisan points does you no favors.

[Magister]

I would add that the more likely corrupt pressure would be from profit-motivated insurance companies that want patients to take cheaper assisted suicide instead of expensive life-extending treatments. That was my cynical impression of some of the motivation decades ago for concern over the possibility of being incapacitated and in great pain (to encourage people to have advance directives and such).

(Those who find fault with bureaucrats often include not trying to reduce costs as one of their faults; I'm also uncertain how many physicians are are on the state payroll in New York anyway, but in addition to requiring three doctors to agree perhaps they should require that at least one not be on the state payroll.)

[dwb68]

Three doctors, boy I feel better! I'm sure doctors would never succumb to the latest groupthink.

[Sarcastr0]

Traditionally, one established a problem with evidence before one insists it's a huge issue.

You're doing the opposite - dismissing arguments it's not an issue out of hand so you can buy trouble.

[Malika la Maize]

Five, seven, ninety!

It doesn’t matter to this slaver. The government should make these choices for you based on the theoretical off chance you might feel pressured to choose “wrong.”

This is the same logic behind things like minimum wage laws.

[dwb68]

The kid can be saved, but the treatment costs 4.7 million. Netted against the present value of his lifetime earnings, its a loss, so give him the needle, say the actuaries at the insurance company. Well, we'll just deny the palliative care, so his parents will choose the needle over his pain. No pressure at all! Its all legal. Just math.

[loki13]

....let's see. So first you've changed it from pressure from the government, to pressure from private industry. Economic "coercion."

Have you really thought this through? Where your desire to argue your (bad) point leads? You are basically arguing against capitalism.

I'd say, "Welcome to the revolution, Comrade," except I actually like free markets. But still ... pretty impressive that you've gone from arguing the slaver's position to arguing that economic coercion (aka, free markets) are inherently immoral.

[David Nieporent]

Then again, do I want someone to be able to check in to a Suicide Booth because Liz in Accounting turned them down for a date?

That bitch? The guy was better off without her.

[hobie]

Glad to see life is precious to you. Now let's say the person seeking assisted suicide is a brownie in a boat on Lake Erie and has some dope in his jacket?

[Sarcastr0]

USAID cuts have been the but-for cause for a ton of deaths. Hard deaths that didn't need to happen.

dwb68's meanwhile jumping at speculative shadows.

It gets weird over in MAGA land.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 50 minutes ago
"USAID cuts have been the but-for cause for a ton of deaths. Hard deaths that didn't need to happen."

That is absolute BS - another leftist making Shit up

[Malika la Maize]

I like the weird capitalization!

[Bob from Ohio]

"ton of deaths"

Speaking of jumping at speculative shadows

[Joe_dallas]

The study sar- easily fooled -castro relied on was a "projection" from and advocacy group, not a actual study. It was pointed out to him on a couple of occasions, yet he repeats the claim knowing that the claim is bogus - or at least should know the claim is bogus.

[Malika la Maize]

The study sar- easily fooled -castro relied on was a "projection" from and advocacy group, not an actual study.

Bookkeepers don’t need English!

[Joe_dallas]

Malika likewise lacks the basic intellectual capacity to recognize bogus data.

Your comment is simply inane

[Sarcastr0]

Know nothingism.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm against organ selling because I think it'll become a race to the bottom for poor people to all sell organs.

But I've got no issue with this. There is no money changing hands; the coercion being called out is pure speculation based on a malign view of doctors.

[Estragon]

“let's euthanize people if and only if they've been convicted of killing or raping another person.”

One example of someone who disagrees with you immediately springs to mind:

“Those people . . . The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.”

“I don’t know, […] He doesn’t recognize you. Maybe you should just let him die and move down to Florida.”

https://time.com/7002003/donald-trump-disabled-americans-all-in-the-family/

[Joe_dallas]

Good news from the HHS on mental health care -.

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-acts-bar-hospitals-performing-sex-rejecting-procedures-children.html

[Malika la Maize]

So the Feds should be able to use federal money promises to dictate what any hospital does?

Talk about “pressure!”

Not sure this is a good precedent.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just say no to federal money and feel free to mutilate children.

[Malika la Maize]

Just say no to federal money and feel free to not offer abortions.

Just say no to federal money and feel free to not offer assisted suicide.

See how that works?

[Mr. Bumble]

Federal money, is there anything it can't do?

[Malika la Maize]

You’ll see buddy!

[Mr. Bumble]

We aren't "buddies".

[Malika la Maize]

Sorry, I assumed your mom calling me her “man friend” made us so.

[Mr. Bumble]

Very professional of you.
Also, who knew that among your other powers you speak to the dead.

[Malika la Maize]

I give as good as I get.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Dr. is in.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Dr. is in."

He suddenly pretends to be a psychologist. Not buying it.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m betting Bob’s got quite the history of being hostile to psychologists. Psychopaths are more his style!

[Bob from Ohio]

" hostile to psychologists"

psychologists are useless like alchemists but more annoying

[hobie]

Medical censorship?

[Joe_dallas]

How is stopping the mutilation of children medical censorship?

[hobie]

Just think of it as some kind of extended super-circumcision

[Joe_dallas]

in other words - you are cool with permanently mutilating the mentally ill.

Nice moral compass you have

[Malika la Maize]

Non-responsive as usual. You’re ok with “mutilating” children sometimes.

[Joe_dallas]

you are simply incapable of grasping the actual medical and mental health issues.

Its obviously a lack any comprehension by your repeated non-relevant and inane comments.

[hobie]

The gays are mentally ill because they believe in something that doesn't exist?

[Nelson]

“ you are simply incapable of grasping the actual medical and mental health issues.”

It’s astonishing to me that the same bigots are recycling the same arguments that they unsuccessfully used against gays to attack trans people. They were all “mentally ill”, too, according to the hatemongers.

Trans people aren’t mentally ill by any rational use of the word. Unless you also believe that arachnaphobes are “mentally ill” and can’t make rational decisions?

[Nelson]

Prescribing puberty blockers is on no way, shape, or form “the mutilation of children”.

The weakness of the anti-trans argument is shown by the fact that they can’t honestly describe what they want to do. They take a lot of things that are neither surgical nor permanent and pretend that they aren’t part of the agenda.

If there were ever an anti-trans bill that ONLY outlawed pre-adulthoood transition surgery, it would have widespread support. I know I would support it.

But that’s not what these laws and rules do. The ban perfectly safe and temporary treatments (like puberty blockers) along with surgery.

If and when such measures start being honestly and accurately described by their proponents, they will start receiving wider support.

[Malika la Maize]

Two of the largest food-delivery app companies have made a last-ditch effort to overturn tipping laws in New York City that go into effect in January just as its next mayor, who has been highly critical of the companies and the app industry, takes office.

Tips to delivery workers have plummeted since some food-delivery apps switched to showing the tipping option only after a purchase had been completed; that change came after New York City established the country’s first minimum pay-rate for the workers in 2023. The new laws will require the apps to suggest a minimum tip of 10 percent at checkout, though customers can contribute more or less, or nothing at all.

Two of the app companies, DoorDash and Uber, filed a joint federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York late last week targeting the City Council legislation, arguing that the new rules violated the First Amendment by requiring them to “speak a government-mandated message” and exceeded the Council’s authority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/nyregion/uber-doordash-nyc-tipping.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"...“speak a government-mandated message” and exceeded the Council’s authority."
Would that be the first time?

[jb]

It doesn't seem crazy to me that tips would/should go down if you switch from a model where most of the delivery people's pay is from tips to a set wage coming from the delivery service. It would be better probably if the apps didn't have tipping at all and then both the purchasers and delivery people would know exactly the deal they were signing up for as they decided whether or not to use the service.

(Having said that, the first amendment argument in the lawsuit seems dumb.)

[Ska]

Percentage tip for delivery drivers makes little sense, especially here where you can get to high cost orders (even before service fee and tax) very easily when ordering grubhub from a restaurant. I'm not talking about lunch orders from the Chinese takeout place, but a decent Italian restaurant when you don't want to go out. Consider this: a couple orders the burrata appetizer - $18, one salad - $18, one pasta - $23, one moderately priced entree - $31. Total meal $90 before tax and fees. The restaurant is four blocks away. The delivery guy doesn't even need to ride a scooter; legit can walk over and back in under five minutes. Why would I tip them $9? This isn't a particularly heavy package, nor difficult to fit in a bag.

My average is $4 - $5. If it's a big order (party size) it would be some calculus based on the same principles: length of trip, weight/unwieldiness of packages.

[Bob from Ohio]

"suggest a minimum tip of 10 percent"

That does seem like compelled speech.

[Malika la Maize]

Let’s try a you’d think would be simple thing.

A POTUS should act in a professional manner, yes or no?

They shouldn’t refer to a political opponent as a “retard” in a typed public pronouncement. That the opponent made a mistake in your view doesn’t justify that, because a professional can denounce that without using that language.

A POTUS should call a Congressperson who disagrees with them on a relatively minor thing a traitor, should they? A professional can register disagreement with that person in many other ways.

A POTUS should not mock a critic who was recently murdered should they?

What can Brett, Mikie Q&A, Life of Bri Bri, jd, etc say to these propositions?

[Bob from Ohio]

“retard”

What if its 100% true like with Trump's target?

I don't see you calling out Dem pols [or people here] who call Trump and many others fascist and other insulting things.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Anyone can feel free to "call me out" for describing Trump or Trumpism as fascist. When I say it, it's not actually meant to be an insult but a descriptor of a style of politics and behavior that has historical antecedents. And FWIW, I resisted the description during Trump 1. The problem for people who view it as a simple insult is that there is a lot of evidence in favor of the proposition and its hard to read books on fascism that were written long before Trump was a thing and not immediately see a lot of parallels. It's also notable that the open-fascists themselves have an affinity for Trump and Trumpism and there are several connections.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good story bro.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Anyone can read Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism (published in 2004) and come to a similar conclusion.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you really think Tim Walz is mentally retarded?

Of course you don’t. So why are you saying this? Especially given that term is largely considered offensive now? Are you hoping it makes you “edgy?” That it defends Dear Leader?

Maybe your EQ is actually so low that you think “any incorrect term is the same?” No wonder you’re a Trumpist!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you really think Tim Walz is mentally retarded? "

Yes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think he has an IQ under 70 as measured by a standardized intelligence test, has significant adaptive deficits in the at least one of the conceptual, social, or practical domains, and that this condition manifested in him before age 18?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, the other useage

retarded
adjective
2
informal + offensive : very stupid or foolish

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary

[Nelson]

So calling someone a retard who doesn’t meet the definition (from back when the term was used) of retardation is 100% true, but calling Trump a felon (because, you know, he was convicted of felonies) is 100% untrue?

MAGA is approaching peak Orwellian groupthink.

[Estragon]

“There is a coverup in progress on this case. Providence police, FBI must be cooperating in it.”

Wow this one aged well. Where does Mr Kharbouch go for his apology? Does the person who posted this have any regrets whatsoever? Will it make him or her more skeptical about the sources they relied upon to spread libelous bullshit on these very pages?

[loki13]

The one thing that I am consistently disheartened by is how ... gullible ... some people are. I guess they WANT to be fooled.

If a news source (and I use the term "news source" lightly) gave me false information, such that I then told others that false information as if it were true ... thus making myself look foolish for spreading and disseminating lies ...

I wouldn't continue to use it. Now, it doesn't mean that I'm not reasonable - obviously, even the best journalistic practices can result in error, but those errors should be few and far between and there should be systemic way to ensure that the errors aren't repeated.

But I wouldn't keep using the same sources that keep lying to me and making me look like the fool, over and over and over again. And yet ... so many here are happy to do so.

[Estragon]

I’m not so sure it’s wanting to be fooled as much. I keep going back to this but in the wake of the Haitians in Springfield Scott Adams talked about “directional accuracy.” JD Vance echoed this idea in his televised interview. That these things are later shown to be false isn’t mortifying because they are DIRECTIONALLY correct, as in the speculative actions of Mustapha Kharbouch and Edward Crabtree or a massive coverup are actually “truer” to the people posting them, notwithstanding the actual reality of events.

[Estragon]

And of course, this dynamic makes ample use of the fact that spreading bullshit is way easier than debunking bullshit. Do I think it’s possible that Publius was genuinely “fooled” into posting thinly sourced garbage because it aligns with his priors? Do I think it’s possible Bob credulously managed to find the single, hastily slapped together, phony looking “news” website with a weird domain name and was genuinely snookered when he posted about the hero of Bondi Beach, Edward Crabtree? I suppose it’s possible, but I dunno, man….

[loki13]

As I say, are they evil or dumb?

Why not both?

[LawTalkingGuy]

So are the people who insisted that there was a targeted assassination of the Brown College Republicans VP by “them” or a cover up going to do any reflection on believing and promoting something so stupid?

[Ridgeway]

I have it on good authority that the "shooter" was actually shot in Fort Marcy Park, rolled in a carpet, and dumped in the Salem NH storage facility.

Sincerely,

Candace

[David Nieporent]

What shooter? Ella Cook, like the other 10 "victims," was obviously a crisis actor.

[hobie]

Earlier this week, ol' Clay and Buck were saying that Brown had been indoctrinating its students to murder in the name of liberalism...to target campus Republicans.

Once they were satisfied with their analysis, they immediately segued [not making this up] into how white men have been the most discriminated against group in the last 30 years. Cannot get a job at universities. Cannot get jobs in government. All the while I'm thinking of some group photo of the Trump administration.

[John 4]

No, they won’t. Learning from mistakes isn’t in their wheelhouse.

[Longtobefree]

Now we know the definition of MASSIVE FRAUD.

https://notthebee.com/article/fulton-county-georgia-admits-they-illegally-certified-315000-ballots-in-2020-election

For those who don't do links.
There is no certification the vote counts were set to zero before counting began.
There is no signature certifying the authenticity of 315,000 votes.
(Biden "won" by just over 11k votes)
So no real chain of custody, no way to know who actually won the election, and no arrests.

[hobie]

What do the Republicans running the state have to say about this?

[jb]

I like when the MAGAs are like two days late on their spoon fed outrage. I guess the fact the university killer turned out not to be a Muslim has you guys kind of desperate for things to be mad about today?

Or maybe we should go back to speculating about the FBI involvement with the pipe bomber guy? That discussion seems to have died down.

[loki13]

LOL. It's almost funny, given how Brett was trying to peddle this yesterday.

But this is how it works. First, you have one "source" misreport the news. Then it gets picked up and hyped up by even more disreputable sources. All of them depend on the complete and utter lack of critical thinking on the part of people who want to be fed what they already know to be true.

The outrage and lies travel around the world, because their brains lack the ability to handle the truth.

[John 4]

You’re telling me the guy who got scammed by a mail order bride (and now takes it out on all immigrants) wasn’t accurate assessing information?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, where's the misreporting? The article makes several factual assertions, which of them would you claim are wrong?

1. Tapes were not signed in 36 of 37 precincts.
2. Law required tapes to be signed.
3. Election certified anyway.
4. Fulton County doesn't dispute this happened.

Now, I suppose you'll say that the failure to sign the tapes doesn't prove the tapes are fake. I'll gladly admit that is true.

But the reason the tapes are supposed to be signed at the time is to make sure that they're not faked, to confirm these are indeed the correct tapes.

So that you don't have to pretend that the absence of evidence of fraud proves the absence of fraud.

You set up processes to make sure bad things don't happen, then don't follow them, yeah, that's not proof that bad things happened. It just means you have no way of knowing that they didn't happen.

And isn't that bad enough? That we're having to take the honesty of Fulton County's 2020 election on faith, rather than being able to prove it by evidence?

Note what I didn't say: I didn't say that I know that Fulton County was the site of election fraud. I said that the people in the best position to commit election fraud saw to it that if they HAD committed election fraud, we wouldn't be able to prove it.

And maybe they just did that out of laziness or incompetence, not because they had something to hide. In fact, I think it's rather likely that the failure to follow procedure wasn't a deliberate effort to hide fraud. But the heck of it is, that's just an assumption, I don't KNOW that.

And I think it's inexcusable that we would have to take the honesty of an election on faith, even though we had mandatory procedures in place, which if they had been followed, would have produced the evidence that would have obliviated the need for faith.

And that's why I said: Nobody involved should be allowed to manage an election for dog catcher going forward.

Do you actually have some reason to dispute that conclusion?

[loki13]

...lol, Brett.

It's like this.

News Outlet Reports: Your epidermis is showing. Therefore, the 2020 Election Was Stolen.

Brett: OMG! DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW!!!! Finally, the proof that the 2020 Election was stolen.

Everyone else: *snicker*

Brett: Why are you laughing? Are you questioning the fact that my epidermis is showing?

Everyone else: ....*gales of laughter*

[David Nieporent]

And isn't that bad enough? That we're having to take the honesty of Fulton County's 2020 election on faith, rather than being able to prove it by evidence?

We do not. To reiterate: they did a full manual recount (of the whole state, which includes Fulton County.)

[Stella Link's Ghost]

[Nelson]

Brett, ask yourself a simple question: is there more than one way to accurately identify whether votes are valid?

If the answer is “Yes” (and before you embarrass yourself, there are multiple independent means of certifying whether a vote is legal and valid), picking out a minuscule and irrelevant lapse and magnifying that to proof the the whole system can’t be trusted is laughable.

For God’s sake, man. You’re an engineer. If you don’t understand self-reinforcing systems and redundancy, who can?

[Longtobefree]

Two days?
This fact was a conspiracy theory for five years.

[loki13]

And it still is a conspiracy theory because y'all too stupid to understand facts. Sorry, but it's true.

Because if you're not stupid, then ... well, then you're evil- because you're knowingly spreading lies.

[jb]

The original Federalist article that your fellow MAGAs have already been using as outage porn was from two days ago. You're a bit late to the party at learning about this extremely minor technicality that's now going to occupy like half your brainpower until you get some new juicy gossip about a trans person or a visa overstayer.

As Loki points out, though, it's nice you at least acknowledge this is a conspiracy theory.

[Magister]

What's the solution? Disenfranchise 315000 people because an election official screwed up, maybe on purpose to achieve that result? Winning Georgia wouldn't have helped Trump in 2020, and apparently Georgia wasn't swayed to vote for the Senate candidates he campaigned for in the subsequent runoff.

[Bob from Ohio]

What other election laws should just be ignored?

[Magister]

14th Amendment, section 3, according to the Supreme Court.

[Nelson]

None. But disenfranchising 315,000 people due to an error that literally doesn’t change anything about the validity or accuracy of the vote count (because, you know, they did a statewide recount that matched the totals from election night) is a ridiculous and unjustifiable remedy for something that was a simple clerical error.

The lack of signature, as should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and without cancerous partisanship and hatred in their heart, changes nothing about the validity of those votes. It doesn’t call their truthfulness into question. It doesn’t make them unverified. It doesn’t make them suspect.

Because they don’t establish anything that can’t be proven any other way.

In fact, at all levels of the voter registration/activation/participation process, there is literally no proof that can’t be established in other, independent ways.

This is why there are almost no knowingly fraudulent votes cast. Because there are numerous ways to identify fraudulent votes.

That’s why the Trump voters in The Villages who voted twice got caught. It was, in fact, the most concentrated fraudulent voting region in the country.

Or look up Kris Kobach if you want to see someone who desperately wanted to prove intentional voter fraud, spent million in state money trying, and found … I believe it was two dozen. In the entire state of Kansas.

[ThePublius]

"an election official screwed up, maybe on purpose" [emphasis mine]

Now who's sowing a conspiracy theory? Holy cow.

What do you think the solution is, if any? It's about vote integrity. Why would election officials fail in their legal duty to sign the tapes, and run a zero tape at the beginning of each voting day? Maybe the solution is to prosecute those officials, and make sure they cease to be election officials.

[jb]

What do you think the solution is, if any? It's about vote integrity. Why would election officials fail in their legal duty to sign the tapes, and run a zero tape at the beginning of each voting day? Maybe the solution is to prosecute those officials, and make sure they cease to be election officials.

The solution is to layer in a set of checks so that even if there's an individual problem with voting procedures, there's other ways to ensure that the right result is achieved. As David Nieporent points out, in this case there were two other checks (vote totals and manual recount) that both verified that there wasn't actually a problem.

As for the election officials, probably the best thing to do is ensure they get proper training, and if it looks like this is a recurring problem then, as you say, hopefully there are procedures to get them out of the roles they are in.

[ThePublius]

"The solution is to layer in a set of checks so that even if there's an individual problem with voting procedures, there's other ways to ensure that the right result is achieved."

How about just following the lawful procedures in the first place?

"As David Nieporent points out, in this case there were two other checks (vote totals and manual recount) that both verified that there wasn't actually a problem."

After the fact. If that's sufficient, what's the point of the lawful procedures?

[Nelson]

“ The solution is to layer in a set of checks so that even if there's an individual problem with voting procedures, there's other ways to ensure that the right result is achieved.”

Which, of course, is exactly what every voting system in America does. Not the machines, which don’t have much, if anything, to do with establishing the legality of votes. But the system of registering, activating (some states require active voting within a certain period to be accepted as is rather than as a provisional ballot), and exercising your right to vote.

[Magister]

How quickly they forget Tina Peters, and the MAGA push to have their loyalists control 2024 elections. The solution is probably to have plenty of checks in place, and to investigate for intentional failures. Not sure why the Republicans in charge of Georgia elections wouldn't have done that.
Edit: apparently they did, from David Nieporent's comment.

[David Nieporent]

There is no certification the vote counts were set to zero before counting began.

But we know they were, because otherwise the vote totals would've been wrong, and they weren't because a full manual recount was done. So it's just a paperwork issue.

There is no signature certifying the authenticity of 315,000 votes.

A signature by a poll worker does not make ballots authentic; it means the poll worker signed his or her name.

and no arrests.

What crime do you think was committed?

[hobie]

[grb]

Every day in every city, there's some hard working Honest Joe scrubbing graffiti off a wall, muttering "damn asshole immature brat" as he does so.

Immediately after Inauguration Day on 20Jan2029, there'll be some hardworking Honest Joe scrubbing Trump's name off every other DC building, muttering "damn asshole immature brat" as he does so.

All you MAGA types can make his life much easier. Gather all available courage to ask your orange-popsicle man-child god to give his insecurities a rest. Aside from making the cleanup more efficient once adults are back in the White House, there are other benefits as well. It will offer less reason for people around the world to laugh uproariously over what a jokey banana republic the U.S. is now.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think it will much matter. I feel pretty certain that Trump will be in memory care before any of what you say happens.

[loki13]

As I said before, I'm reasonably certain the original reason that they put up all those godawful signs in the White House ("Oval Office" etc.) is just so Trump could remember where he was at without having to ask someone.

[John 4]

https://www.salon.com/2025/12/19/the-white-house-ballroom-will-never-be-built/

“Two months later, it increasingly seems that such discussion was a wasted effort, as the chance this ballroom will actually be built is rapidly disappearing. Perhaps it could have if Trump had delegated the management of the project to someone competent, but that’s not what he did. Instead, the famously lazy and disorganized president decided to blow off his actual governance duties in favor of micromanaging a construction project he is incapable of handling.”

Sounds about right.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I support the pending NY Medical Aid-in-Dying (MAID) law.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/12/hochul-agrees-sign-medical-aid-dying-bill/410219/

"the bill would allow people with six months or fewer to live to request access to a cocktail of drugs that would end their life"

It has various safeguards, including those Gov. Hochul negotiated to include as part of her agreement not to veto the legislation.

This is not a matter of "socialized" medicine. The ability to end your life in that fashion is a general matter. This is not the same thing as mere refusal of treatment, but that also is a general principle.

The law allows people power over their body using their own personal conscientious choices. It is a matter of liberty.

It is valid to be concerned about the choice made and that is why special protections for this specifically makes sense. People have a various of moral beliefs over such questions, including when it is appropriate to refuse treatment. One poll linked to that article reflects the difference of opinion:

The survey from Public Policy Polling was conducted between Sept. 17 and Sept. 18 with more than 1,000 people from across the state. New Yorkers over 45 years old made up 61% of all respondents. Among this older cohort, 54% of those aged 46 to 65 supported the governor signing the Medical Aid in Dying bill, as did 53% of respondents older than 65. Additionally, 66% of those aged 30 to 45 supported the governor signing the bill, showing that most adults in New York agree with the proposed law. Among the religious, 49% of Catholics, 51% of Protestants and 45% of Jewish respondents want the bill signed.

There is sometimes a concern that such laws diminish the sanctity of life. The "sanctity" of life, however, has various complexities, including the quality of life and the respect given to people making individual choices over their lives.

MAID also is not a blanket libertarian policy. A person might argue that anyone should have the right to such drugs. We as a society don't follow strict libertarian principles, however, and the law is much more restrictive.

Also, there are a variety of ways to protect the sanctity of life, including protecting health care and careful regulation of governmental usage of lethal force.

[Bob from Ohio]

Gov. Hochul negotiated to include as part of her abandonment of her alleged religious principles.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I see you've branched out from deciding who counts as a real-Jew to who counts as a real Catholic.

[Malika la Maize]

Guy who only believes in partisanship gotta police others beliefs!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If people are not sick of the topic yet, Michael Dorf consistently provides a good analysis of legal topics:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/12/birthright-citizenship-for-non-lawyers.html

(He also supports animal rights and talks about that in various contexts. He co-wrote a book with Sherry Colb, his wife, about the connection of abortion rights and animal welfare.)

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/providing-for-the-closure-of-executive-departments-and-agencies-of-the-federal-government-on-december-24-2025-and-december-26-2025/

Because Christmas is extra important you see.

[Bob from Ohio]

The 25th is already a federal holiday. This is standard, no, when the president extends the time off?

You are cleared to go to work both days if you want.

[Absaroka]

1)I was curious enough to go googling. It seems that two days off (besides the 25th) is not the norm.

2)Of all the things Trump does that I disagree with, this seems like a really odd thing to object to. For one thing objecting makes you look like a Grinch, and secondly, ahem, not a lot is accomplished those days anyway. Lots of coming in late, leaving early, office parties, and wandering around exchanging best wishes. Even if one is hyper focused on cranking out code or whatever you do those days, you better not need to touch base with anyone else, because they have probably run out on an errand. If you have a public facing job - accepting building permits or whatever - the customer traffic is probably way down because those people are out shopping or whatever[1]. This is equally true in the private and public sectors, IMHE.

[1]obviously not including the P.O, ER, or retail.

[loki13]

I mean, it's par for the course for Trump (constant EOs to promote whatever his reality show message is of that second ... here, he's defending us against the made-up "War on Christmas" ... even if it is in direct opposition to his other reality show message ... "Hate on lazy government workers that take your money and do nothing and ignore the fact that I'm giving them more paid time off!") ...

But I'm fine with it. Enjoy the time with your family if you get it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It seems that two days off (besides the 25th) is not the norm."

That article discusses Wednesday Christmas. This year is Thursday.

Trump gave Christmas Eve off in 2019 but not the TWO days afterwards. This year it looks like he, or a staffer, recognizes that nothing is getting done Friday anyways.

Sarcasto and his tribe here just hate Trump so much everything he does is bad.

[Sarcastr0]

I love my job, and don’t care for last minute changes to my schedule.

My agency is closing. If want to work it’d be a lot of work to get permission to work.

It’s annoying. And all for war on Christmas wankery.

Simple as.

[Bob from Ohio]

"war on Christmas wankery"

Oh? "Christmas" appears once in the document, as a common descriptive term for the 25th of December.

You should take advantage of the extra time off and think about your sad TDS life.

[hobie]

Sarcastr0, this holiday season is all about the baby Jeebus. We already have the Jews and the Blacks perverting it for their own ends. Now here you come trying to fuck with our new federal Trumping Day (Boxing Day) and Trumpmas Eve.

Ah Trumpmas Eve: The magical night where tradition has us place a Trump coin into Trump sneakers hung by the chimney with care...in the hopes that the prince of peace - St. Trump - soon will be there.

In Iowa, St. Trump will deliver federal welfare subsidies to all the good little rich white MAGAs. And in Baltimore, escorted by armed federal elves, St. Trump spies some food stamp booklets on the mantle. 'Ho! Ho! Ho! What have we here?!' Exclaims St. Trump....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on December 24, 2025, or December 26, 2025, or both, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public need."

Major loophole. Anyway, I figure it is normal for federal offices to be closed for the Christmas holiday, so I don't know how special this order is. I would toss in that France is much more secular than us but their public holidays are influenced by Christian celebrations.

[Bob from Ohio]

The loophole won't possibly hurt Sarcasto.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Another reply notes this appears to give extra time off not done before. That's the sort of thing that provides helpful context.

[ThePublius]

Wow, those jokers in Rhode Island ar so full of it.

A homeless Brown graduate living on campus(!), John, cracked this case: confronted the perp, followed him, noted his car, confronted him; posted on Reddit, and then went to the PD in person to alert them. This all led to tracking down and finding the guy.

At the press conference, Providence PD chief colonel Oscar Perez takes credit, attributing it to 'good old fashioned police work.'

I'll bet they decline to award the $50k reward to John, as they are busy spinning this and taking the credit.

[John 4]

Any bets as to how long it will be until this new conspiracy is proved to be completely false?

[ThePublius]

What conspiracy? The RI AG acknowledged John's involvement, the tip, and so on.

Check the link. And don't be so skeptical.

[Estragon]

“What conspiracy?”

Here’s a conspiracy for you! Brown, Providence PD and Kash Patel’s FBI covering up the identity of the perpetrator:

“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.”

IMO, you and Ed should really be getting a lot more credit for correctly identifying, days before the cops, the culprit here while the Brown University Police were fumbling this case so badly.

[hobie]

Exact same story Patel gave when nabbing the Kirk assassin. Claiming it was all hard-nose FBI investigation, when then never had a clue and it was just the family that turned him in. If they had to fire Patel for whatever reason, they'd have a perfect replacement in Karoline Leavett.

[ThePublius]

What does any of that have to do with my post? I told about John, and John 4 refers to it as a conspiracy. What conspiracy?

[John 4]

The cops are conspiring to deny this brave soul his just reward (allegedly).

[ThePublius]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/12/19/authorities-homeless-mans-reddit-clues-cracked-the-brown-university-shooting-case/

Let's hope he gets the reward.

[jb]

Wow, the police used information from a witness to help solve a case! In other news, scientists are now saying that rain falls from the sky.

[ThePublius]

They initially ignored him. It wasn't until he went there in person that they paid attention.

[jb]

I'm not a police, but I watch some police shows on TV and in some of them it seems like they get lots of tips. I'd imagine that's extra true for cases that get nationwide press coverage.

Not saying they did a great job or a bad job. Like I said, I'm not a police. I have no idea. But you guys seem to be trying REALLY hard to find something weird going on in what looks like a pretty standard investigation.

[loki13]

I think people watch too many TV shows, and believe the CSI bs and other stuff they see there.

Because of that, they KNOW how LEO works, without actually, um, knowing how it works.

(FWIW, and I truly wish people understood this- no, most cases do not involve awesome scientists doing advanced forensics work in the awesome most cool labs ever on multiple tough issues and getting the results back to the detectives that day.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What about mediocre scientists in "eh" labs who get the results to them by the end of the week, more or less?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, don't forget the TWO DIFFERENT Mass Drug Lab scandals...

[loki13]

I mean ... don't get me wrong, I am not here to disparate the unglamorous and underpaid work of the people in forensics labs. AT ALL.

But it's not like it is on television. It would be like saying that a trial in real life is exactly like what you see on TV- you know, with a snappy two to three minute opening statement (which is usually an argument) and a devastating one or two minute closing argument, usually predicated on some appeal or gotcha that didn't happen during the case-in-chief (which is almost never shown).

Underfunding and lengthy delays are the rule, not the exception. And some of the forensics tests that I see on TV are just ... lol, no.

[grb]

Two Things:

1. It was five days from the initial shooting until a warrant was issued for the alleged murder and he was found dead. It was three days after the first shooting that John (the homeless guy) posted his Reddit tip. Now, I'm never shy over grumbling about the cops, but always try to keep it within reason. I don't see much ground to criticize the police here.

2. And is this really a subject you want to crowd in front of? Unless I'm mistaken, you're the "Kharbouch Conspiracy Guy".

[Nelson]

Basically every MAGA xenophobe bigot on the planet was "Kharbouch Conspiracy Guy".

Including a wide spread of commenters here, particularly those of the paleocon persuasion.

[David Nieporent]

With respect to the Brown shooter, while making up a leftist conspiracy and blaming innocent people based on the same Internet sleuthing that helped catch the wrong Boston marathon bomber, MAGA has spent the last few days demonizing the university itself. While I understand that the real argument is "Brown is liberal so I hate them," I don't understand what the pretextual argument was intended to be. Brown is not a law enforcement agency; it's not the university's job to track down a killer. Why were any delays or missteps in the investigation its fault?

[DDHarriman]

>While I understand that the real argument is "Brown is liberal so I hate them,"

Well since your premise is false, the rest of your argument fails.

Nice try. *tussles hair*

[ThePublius]

1. lack of cameras;
2. University President knows nothing for days after the incident;
3. "Brown is not a law enforcement agency; it's not the university's job to track down a killer." Brown University has its own police and emergency response departments, so, yes, part of Brown is a law enforcement agency. https://publicsafety.brown.edu/

[Estragon]

Maybe they should have hired you— after all, you had the suspect identified days in advance of the police.

[ThePublius]

Do you guys do nothing but fling shit online?

[Estragon]

Any circumspection about publicly naming the wrong person? Some people might call doing something like that “fling[ing] shit.” I can think of another word.

[John 4]

This.

[ThePublius]

I didn't publicly name him; he was already in the news. And it was just speculation.

[Estragon]

No circumspection, just excuses— got it. Reported in the news is vastly overstated: your main sourcing were 2 rando right wing twitter accounts. Any hesitation about those sources going forward? Any lessons learned here? You mainlined right-wing bullshit into this comment section and then accuse others of “fling[ing] shit” while making excuses. Predictably gormless! I really urge you to reflect upon this. What if it had been someone you cared about who was falsely named?

[hobie]

↑ Also this.

Estragon's got your number today, Publius.

[ThePublius]

Get lost. Note that at the end of the day, Estragon's just an internet rando, too.

[John 4]

Jesus, man. Have some self respect.

[hobie]

For real, for real. Where's the professional courtesy, Publius?

[Nelson]

“ And it was just speculation.”

Ignorant, bigoted, hateful speculation. Your specialty.

[grb]

ThePublius, (today) : "Do you guys do nothing but fling shit online?"

ThePublius, (3 days ago) : "Brown University wiped its Mustapha Kharbouch page within the past hour or so...There is a coverup in progress on this case. Providence police, FBI must be cooperating in it."

Me, (3 days ago, responding to ThePublius above) : "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?"

So, branching off with a new question, how you'd feel if you were Mr. Kharbouch? Just a little humility would seem to be de rigueur.

[ThePublius]

Hey, I didn't name him, I was just reporting what I saw to this very small community.

[grb]

It could be worse. I once confidently told Don Nico there was no way Putin would launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In my defense, I'd been hearing how smart he was (Putin, definitely not Nico) for decade after decade. Why would he do something that dumb?

Still, a massive slice of humble pie was in order, so I dutifully ate. Are you hungry?

[Sarcastr0]

You literally named him.

It costs you nothing to wait a day or two and thus not post irresponsible Internet gumshoe hot takes that age like milk.

[ThePublius]

You're too much. His identity was all over the internet. So I mention it here and I'm a bad guy? Sheesh!

[Estragon]

All over the internet! You provided two troll twitter accounts as your sourcing. And you know how it really gets “all over” the internet? When people like you repeat it! Yes— you are a bad guy, as you are amply demonstrating here today.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, you named him too. As did grb.

[Estragon]

After it was clear he wasn’t the guy. If you’re trying to equate me with the right wing sickos who doxxed and falsely accused this guy ex ante, well, that’s your prerogative.

[John 4]

Would you say you were just…flinging shit? Clown ass.

[hobie]

Just asking questions.

[ThePublius]

Brown has still not explained, regardless of reporter's questions, why they scrubbed that page. Did they do so? Yes.

I am not responsible for publicizing him, that's the way the internet is.

You telling me "please stop" is just noise from another internet rando.

You must admit, the coincidence is both interesting and suspicious.

[Sarcastr0]

You are part of the way the Internet is.

Be better and it will be better. Don’t wash your hands of it as you typify a certain kind of abuse.

[Estragon]

“why they scrubbed that page”

Did it occur to you that the reason this poor guy had to scrub himself from the internet was that right wing sickos like yourself were going around posting in random comment sections that he was a mass shooter? FFS man. Take some responsibility. We all make mistakes, but it takes an actual functioning adult to own up to it. You are acting like a 12 year old. Now where have I heard that before….?

[loki13]

"Take some responsibility."

I'm pretty sure that the mantra of MAGA comes straight from the top.

"Never blame yourself for what you've done when you can blame someone else, instead."

Just wait for it ... he'll start up with, "It's not my fault I disseminate lies that hurt people. It ... IT'S BIDEN'S FAULT!"

Works for his hero. Why not for him.

[John 4]

Why did they remove the info for a guy who right wing nut jobs were incorrectly naming as a murderer? I can’t imagine!

[Dr. Ed 2]

So, why DID they scrub him?!?

[Estragon]

Because of people like you is a good guess.

[David Nieporent]

1. Even were that a valid complaint — and "This isn't enough of a police state" is a pretty terrible argument — it was water under the bridge. The people I'm asking about were the ones criticizing Brown over how the investigation was going, not over what hadn't been done years earlier.
2. Yes, you've illustrated my point perfectly. It was a mass shooting being investigated by law enforcement. Why would we expect Brown's president to be in the loop on that?
3. Pretty much every moderately sized university has its own police. They hand out parking tickets on campus and break up loud parties and take reports of bicycle thefts. They do not investigate mass shootings — let alone track down suspects off campus.

[Moderation4ever]

The job of University Police is not murder investigation. They are much more likely to be handling event crowd control, intoxicated students, fights, and sexual assaults. This case is really outside their bailiwick.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they are a "full service" department.
https://publicsafety.brown.edu/

Should they be is a different question.

[Nelson]

“ handling … sexual assaults.”

You misspelled “covering up”.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you have your own police department with powers of arrest and such, then you are liable for the incompetence of said department.

If you have your own police department, it IS your job to track down criminals. That's why you have powers of arrest and the right to use blue lights.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congrats to the Seattle Seahawks with an impressive come from behind (16 points) win against the Rams with multiple exciting two-point plays, including the winner in OT.

Nice appearance from "Melania Trump" the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ25e66cZF8

[Mr. Bumble]

Could Elon Musk's (and others) web of LEO satellites doom his plans to get to Mars or even get back into space?
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-single-solar-storm-could-trigger-an-end-to-space-travel-heres-how

[jb]

Highly uneducated thoughts in response:

I was wondering if satellites should have autonomous avoidance mechanisms, similar to airplanes, but likely that would require additional sensors (adding weight and cost) and I'm skeptical that they'd be able to detect other objects from far enough away to do anything about it in time.

Alternatively, could the satellites be designed to autonomously keep themselves in the right position as opposed to relying on signals from Earth to do so? If so, would the solar flare mess the autonomous systems up too?

The safest yet probably hard to stomach approach might be to have the satellites intentionally drop out of orbit if they lose communications for a certain amount of time. This would risk losing the entire constellation during a prolonged communication outage, though.

[grb]

That's a fascinating doomsday-style scenario (building on my many viewings of the movie, "Gravity"). My question would be whether these satellites could automatically deorbit if functional control is lost. Per my understanding, they're extremely small in size and mass, so there'd likely be little danger on the ground after reentry.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but as jb mentions above, doing so would disrupt all communication until a new constellation could be launched.

[grb]

Per the scenario, they lost functional control and are doomed to fail. Their navigation & communication circuitry are fried. The Kessler Syndrome is the inevitable result, so the entire system must collapse anyway.

I agree the safeguards jb proposes are a better solution. However it would be a technical challenge to provide full functional independence in small satellites that are stripped down to little more than a relay. And even if they can keep station in orbit by themselves, do they still perform their original function anyway?

The alternative would have every one of these zillions of tiny satellites larger, more sophisticated, and many times more expensive so they can survive alone after ground control was cut, and then later reestablish functionally despite their damage.

Deep space probes can do that. Voyager I spacecraft was launched back in 1977 and is now the most distant human-made object from Earth (though it's still only going to reach a distance of one light-day in November of 2026). It recently was near total functional collapse until engineers rerouted and reworked its systems thru redundant channels. The fix took over a year of hard work.

Granted, that's ancient tech. But do Starlink-style satellites have the redundancy for that kind of triage to work?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Elon. The problem is it's crowded out there and becoming more so every day.Aside from Musk and Bezos the Russians, Chinese and I believe Indians are launch LEO communication satellites.
Musk and Bezos are now talking about placing AI data centers in space.

[grb]

I don't have Elon's number. Given he's a creepy adolescent troll, I doubt I'd put it on speed dial anyway. As Moderation4ever says below, ultimately we need robots doing cleanup in orbit.

How much of a technical challenge that requires is an interesting question. The robot would need power to regularly shift the plane and altitude of its orbit. And what would it do with the trash post-sweep-up? Dang if I know.

In best Deforest Kelly-voice: "Damn it; I'm an architect, not a rocket scientist". That said, I like hanging out with the cool kid rocket scientists, many of whom can be found here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

[Moderation4ever]

Good article. It again makes me think that people's goal for space are misplaced. The high profile programs like Moon and Mars landing are take resources that would be better spent closer to Earth. Imagine if we saved the ISS and converted it for use on practical things like recycling and manufacturing in space. Develop scavenger robots based at the space station and designed to collect space junk and return it to the station. There space technician recycled the material. Imagine a solar power blast furnace to melt down and recycle the junk metal. Now none of this is as sexy as a Mars landing but it would be many times more useful to humans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"many times more useful to humans"

It would not be very useful to humans.

Recycling on earth is basically worthless, recycling in space will have no value whatsoever.

You want to spend billions for a few thousand dollars worth of metal.

[Moderation4ever]

Very myopic. The major goal is to clear out space debris. Those few thousand of dollars of metals are of value because of there location. , in space. Remanufacture the metals with robotic AI systems and you don't have to spent millions launching new metal into space. Again the problem is that a manufacturing facility in low earth orbit is less sexy than a moon base.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Truly asinine

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15394215/Sainsburys-Grinch-card-trans-people.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nine Billion dollars in Somalia fraud in Minnesota.

So far.

And the MN-USA says "Every day we turn over a rock and find a $50M fraud -- every day...

[grb]

For God's sake, Ed, get a grip.

1. It isn't nine billion dollars "so far". So far it's a microscopic fraction of that number.

2. The "nine billion" figure was speculation by one person. That speculation assumed that half of all money spent on all fourteen Medicaid programs in the state since 2018 is fraudulent. Count me a pollyanna optimist, but I'm guessing that assumption is massively delusional.

3. You've got a scandal. It involves some black people. You should be happy as a pig in shit. Why bother with delusional numbers when reality is treating you so well?

[ThePublius]

So you're throwing the race card. Typical.

[hobie]

Oh, a week ago, I listed four active MAGA politicians who engaged in equally enormous medicare fraud but somehow managed to avoid prison (they were also white...two being Jeb Bush and Rick Scott). But no one here made a peep about it.

So we need to be fair to grb. Similarly situated criminals...only difference being skin color and/or political affiliation. (I suppose the Somalis could be MAGA, then that would leave just skin color)

[hobie]

It's almost like Ed doesn't like massive fraud and those who perpetrate it. Next he'll be against pardoning anyone who engaged in it.

[ThePublius]

"Half of $18 billion in federal welfare funds, which supports 14 Minnesota-run programs since 2018, has been lost to fraud, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said during a press conference Thursday."

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/12/19/prosecutor-minnesota-has-become-a-magnet-for-welfare-fraud/

[hobie]

Very intense interest in this particular fraud case, Publius. I better check the photos....

....oh dear

[Michael P]

Hallucinating hater hobie is super eager to judge people based on their skin color.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The NYT analysis piece on Trump's "professional wrestling" leadership technique chooses a suitable metaphor (scripted fake entertainment involved fighting evil caricatures, etc.).

"Elise Stefanik Drops Out of N.Y. Governor’s Race and Will Leave Congress"

Rep. Stefanik is an unpleasant person who decided to sell her soul to support Trumpism. She was repeatedly burned by both Trump and Mike Johnson. Devil bit her in the butt, I guess.

(Angel On My Shoulder was on TCM last night.)

I didn't think she was an ideal choice for the governor's race on the Republican side except to degree I want that side to lose.

Unlike Greene, she won't resign before the end of her congressional term (though if she decided to do so later, it would not surprise me), but she won't run for re-election.

[Mr. Bumble]

What will tomorrow bring?
Epstein, drug boats, attack on Syria.
Tune in starting at 3:00 AM EST.

[BrotherMovesOn]

*What will tomorrow bring?"
Another day of Bumble's grandkids asking Grandma why he spends all day in the computer den insulting strangers on the internet?
Same as every day.

[whall_h2a1188]

Seventh Amendment - Public Rights - Prove Me Wrong

Anyone familiar with what passes for Seventh Amendment jurisprudence is aware of the refrain from judges who are about to deny the right to a jury trial that there's no definition of a "public right." Here's a proposed definition: "A "public right" is a claim or remedy that is 'legal' (as opposed to equitable) in nature that was not actionable at common law." I have found no cases that do not fit this definition. Anyone know of any?

[whall_h2a1188]

I would enjoy some feedback. The brief is due the 24th.