Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

The Virginia man arrested this month on charges of placing two pipe bombs in Washington on the night before a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has given a detailed confession, according to court papers released on Sunday night.

In the public first hint at a motive in the case, the documents said that the man, Brian J. Cole Jr., felt he needed to “speak up” after he began to suspect that the 2020 election, in which President Trump was defeated, had been “tampered with.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/28/us/politics/jan-6-pipe-bomb.html

Is the accused angling for a pardon?

The government's memorandum in support of pretrial detention is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.287328/gov.uscourts.dcd.287328.17.0.pdf

Our prisons likely would not be filled to capacity if accused persons would simply realize that one reason God gave us five fingers on each hand is to help remember the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=858s

[Kazinski]

What doesn't add up about his confession is he started buying pipe bomb components months before Jan 6th, it seems he was looking for an excuse to make one and an event where it would get some attention.

[Michael P]

Indeed. From the government's memo, he bought end caps for pipes as early as October 2019 -- long before any of the primaries, much less the general-election shenanigans like illegally certifying 315,000 votes.

[AmosArch]

Its very telling the Biden folks couldn't catch what seems to be a literal mentally handicapped person for years. Probably afraid of what he might do to their 'insurrection' narrative. They're evil but not stupid like the ones who genuinely swallow their stories.

[ducksalad]

Probably afraid of what he might do to their 'insurrection' narrative.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying.

You're saying that catching this guy would disprove the narrative that the J6ers were insurrectionists instigated by Donald Trump. It would, instead, suggest a new narrative that the J6ers were "literally mentally handicapped".

That second narrative is what I've always believed. Not just about the people who showed up on J6 but also their online defenders, and the man they were supported. So I'm glad to have my narrative finally confirmed.

[Michael P]

The fact that this guy is a lone nut with years of practice making pipe bombs and distrust for both major parties would have undercut all the claims that the J6 protest was something planned and organized by Donald Trump or his supporters.

[Malika la Maize]

A lot of people just thought he inflamed various nuts, which this is consistent with. What’s having more trouble with the current facts is the “FBI false flag” narrative that MAGAns pushed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ash stake needed…..

There can be multiple motives amongst a diverse population.

[Malika la Maize]

Hence various nuts, nut.

[ducksalad]

I believe Malika is pointing out that the "started working on this plot in October 2019" claim doesn't really jibe with the "false flag to discredit the otherwise peaceful and patriotic J6 protestors" claim.

Because that would imply that the guy knew way back in October 2019 that there would be an attempt to protest the counting of the electoral votes, before the primaries even started.

Now I suppose you can counterclaim that the FBI was doing false flag, this guy was an independent lone wacko, the Capitol PD were true flag thugs, and all the rest of those present had purely peaceful intent and any acts of violence they allegedly engaged in were merely self-defense against the first three factions. Is that your narrative?

[Malika la Maize]

I mean he regularly attracted and provoked to anger various nutty people with his weird ways, rhetoric and claims.

[Michael Ejercito]

How did he "inflame" them?

[David Nieporent]

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

[Michael P]

Donald Trump is anything but a sealion.

[Malika la Maize]

He’s just shaped like one and about as coherent.

[Malika la Maize]

With his conspiracy theories, rhetoric and general nuttiness.

[John 4]

Yeah, he’s probably a secret lib! I can see the crack investigative squad is on the team. Can’t wait to check in later and see what the genius have come up with!

[Malika la Maize]

It’s gone from “FBI false flag” to “not much effort” pretty quickly. You can’t falsify conspiracy thinking.

[DDHarriman]

You mean people's theories changed as new data was discovered?

Oh my lands! Every one knows you're not supposed to update your beliefs when you learn new things!! You know just like a good Democrat?

[Malika la Maize]

The theory of people like you here started on wild conjecture and little else and then changed ever so slightly when the evidence busted a hole in it. That’s how conspiracy nuts roll.

[David Nieporent]

There are two problems with that sarcasm:

1) The initial beliefs were not based on anything at all, which is what you're "not supposed to" do.

2) You people didn't update your beliefs. You kept the same beliefs (conspiracy by the FBI); you just changed the way you got there.

[Riva]

And a Biden DOJ/FBI obsessed with hunting down every grandmother who even looked at the Capitol had evidence of this crazed "MAGA" actor but just shrugged their shoulders and said "meh"?

[bernard11]

What doesn't add up about his confession is he started buying pipe bomb components months before Jan 6th,

Why doesn't it add up? The article says:

the man, Brian J. Cole Jr., felt he needed to “speak up” after he began to suspect that the 2020 election, in which President Trump was defeated, had been “tampered with.”

It's entirely possible, even reasonable, to think his suspicions began well before Jan. 6, as did those of the insurrectionists. Trump was, after all, making a lot of noise, filing a lot of lawsuits, claiming the election was stolen, or was going to be stolen, before Jan. 6.

[David Nieporent]

I would note that "bomb components" doesn't necessarily mean anything sinister at all. That things could be used for bombs does not mean they could only be used for bombs or were intended at the time of purchase to be used for bombs.

It's kind of like when "burglars tools" are anything a burglar has, no matter how innocent, like a screwdriver.

[hobie]

Article also states the suspect suffers from severe Tylenolism. Makes problematic the death penalty for the one J6 defendant - the neegro - that won't be getting a pardon. Sad.

[Frank Drackman]

Only “January 6 Knee-grow” I know of is the only one who murdered anyone that day, and strangely hasn’t even had his Badge taken away.

[hobie]

Thanks for pointing that out, Frankie. The only cop who done wrong was the neegro, and the only insurrectionist to get a full reckoning will also be the neegro. Ain't that something?!

[Frank Drackman]

Ashli Babbit (go ahead mock a dead Veteran) got a “reckoning” for exercising her Constitutional Rights.

[hobie]

Regardless what people have done over their lifetimes, we usually permanently label them based on their last acts. That's why OJ's Ronald Goldman is the friend/motorist Goldman, and Hillary is Secretary of State Hillary. That's why Tiny, Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt will always be Insurrectionist Tiny, Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt and not Veteran Tiny Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt. Capiche?!

[CountmontyC]

So we should label George Floyd a counterfeiter because his last act was to pass a counterfeit bill? Cool.

[hobie]

Exactly correct!

[Magister]

I would say rather based on the most important thing they are known for. For Clinton, it's probably Secretary of State rather than presidential candidate, senator or first lady, because that was her most influential position. For Babbitt, almost nobody would have heard of her except for her final act of insurrection. George Floyd would be almost entirely unknown except for being the victim of a shocking police murder.

[David Nieporent]

the most important thing they are known for.

An American walks into a bar in somewhere in Ireland and sits next to a really old guy drinking a beer. And the old guy’s like, “Did you see that wall on your way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built that wall with my own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Mason? Noooo.” Then he’s like, “Did you see those cabinets on your way into the bar?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I build those cabinets with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Carpenter? Noooo.” Then he says, “Did you see the iron gates on the way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built those gates with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Smith? Noooo. But you fuck one goat…”

[SRG2]

There is no constitutional right to trespass, to break windows, and to be part of a violent mob.

Or, in language you'd understand, there is no Constitutional Right to trespass, to Break Windows, and to be Part of a violent Mob.

[DDHarriman]

Cosmic justice for all the harm they do to Whites. Disproportionately so.

[hobie]

You gonna let this antisemite talk about blacks like that in front of you, Frankie?

[Michael P]

Apparently you are going to let him, hallucinating hater hobie.

[Malika la Maize]

American Renaissance types like Mikie Q don’t like it when you call out the Daily Stormers who sit in the back of their conferences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nor do you when I call for Ash Stakes..

[Michael P]

Calling for ash stakes is at least a vague call to to something, although it is not clear what you actually mean. (Wooden stakes for vampires were often white oak, hawthorn, fruit woods or other woods.)

In contrast, hobie doesn't denounce his fellow antisemitic racists, and yet he loves to criticize others for not preventing hobie's fellows from commenting. Malicia in turn loves to incoherently rant about people pointing out hallucinating hater hobie's hypocrisy.

[SRG2]

Michael P: I've not seen you ever denounce DDHarriman for his anti-Semitism nor Frankie for his racism. You wouldn't be holding someone else to a higher standard than you show yourself, now would you?

[hobie]

MichaelP has the red ass 'cause hobie keeps pointing out his racism. So MichaelP pulls out the old sandbox chestnut: 'No, you're a racist!'

[rubbing chin] Also, why indeed hasn't MAGA MichaelP not called out MAGA DDHarriman for antisemitism? It's a conundrum!

[Malika la Maize]

“Michael P: I've not seen you ever denounce DDHarriman for his anti-Semitism nor Frankie for his racism.”

His standard is “no enemies to the right.” Here Harriman goes full Daily Stormer and Mikie Q…goes all in to white knight him attacking hobie when hobie calls out Harriman.

[DDHarriman]

What does the data say about black on White crime?

[Malika la Maize]

The data says some blacks commit crime against some whites, your collectivist attributions are akin to those that think whites generally should feel guilt for the actions of some whites generations ago to other groups.

[Riva]

Rather sounds like he's a bit of a clairvoyant having prepared for Jan 6 months before there even was an election.

[hobie]

Just like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and Kenneth Chesebro, and Josh Hawley did

[Riva]

Uh, actually no. In fact, not at all.

[David Nieporent]

Almost as clairvoyant as Donald Trump, who told him (and everyone else) that the election was going to have been stolen months before there even was an election.

[Joe_dallas]

Hillary said the same thing in 2016 - but lets focus only on trump.

Kerry was forecasting similar stolen election in Ohio in 2004

Duval County 1948

Cooke county and Kennedy 1960

But its Trump, Trump Trump and only Trump for those suffering from TDS

[Malika la Maize]

“Hillary said the same thing in 2016 - but lets focus only on trump.

Kerry was forecasting similar stolen election in Ohio in 2004”

Pathetic try at about. Trump was the only one that did not concede (to this day), months later he was calling for a “wild” protest and on his VP to stop the certification.

[Joe_dallas]

Pathetic attempt to deny reality.

Another woke leftist suffering from severe TDS.

[Malika la Maize]

Who’s denying reality, did Trump concede (as Clinton and Kerry did) or not? Did he call on his VP to stop certification or not?

[Joe_dallas]

DN's comment "....that the election was going to have been stolen months before there even was an election."

Everyone knows you lack the ability to follow and comprehend the topic - therefore I repeated the original comment. Try to work on your comprehension.

[Magister]

Nobody but Trump has ever claimed a presidential election would be stolen months before the actual election.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 7 minutes ago
"Nobody but Trump has ever claimed a presidential election would be stolen months before the actual election."

Hillary made that claim a few times in 2016!

[Malika la Maize]

“Hillary made that claim a few times in 2016!”

Interesting qualifier, Trump made the claim regularly and uniquely never conceded taking extraordinary efforts to stop certification.

[David Nieporent]

Hillary made that claim a few times in 2016!

As with everything else bookkeeper_joe says, the wikipedia flag applies: [Citation needed.]

[hobie]

Dear AI, did Hillary Clinton ever claim the 2016 election was stolen or would be stolen?

"Hillary Clinton did not claim the 2016 election would be or was stolen immediately after the results. She publicly conceded the election to Donald Trump on November 9, 2016, and stated, "We must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president". "

[Joe_dallas]

AI - gives multiple answers

Yes, Hillary Clinton has stated on multiple occasions that the 2016 election was "stolen" from her, primarily citing Russian interference, voter suppression, and the FBI's actions as factors that tainted the results.
Key Details of Her Claims
Russian Interference: Clinton and other Democrats pointed to the campaign by Russian intelligence to hack and leak Democratic National Committee (DNC) and campaign officials' emails to damage her campaign and help Donald Trump win.
"Stolen" Terminology: In a 2019 speech, she explicitly told an audience, "You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you"

[Joe_dallas]

Hobie truncates the rest of AI's response

Wonder Why?

AI - " Voter Suppression: Her campaign also pointed to various state laws related to voter ID and purging of voter rolls as forms of voter suppression that could affect the outcome.
After the election, in subsequent interviews and in her memoir What Happened, Clinton stated her belief that the combination of these events tainted the election and made it "not on the level". In a 2019 interview, she did use the word "stolen" when discussing Russian interference, telling an audience: "You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you". "

[Magister]

Lying Joe_dallas forgets that his original claim was that Clinton claimed the election would be stolen months before the election; only Donald Trump did so.

[Malika la Maize]

Joe_dallas 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Magister 7 minutes ago
"Nobody but Trump has ever claimed a presidential election would be stolen months before the actual election."

Hillary made that claim a few times in 2016!

“*After the election* in subsequent interviews and in her memoir What Happened, Clinton stated her belief that the combination of these events tainted the election and made it "not on the level". In a *2019* interview, she did use the word "stolen"

[Riva]

Actually, Not Guilty, to the extent one can take the available information at face value, Cole admitted to planting the bombs, stating "something just snapped" because he felt both political parties were responsible for a "tampered" 2020 election.

[not guilty]

But when arrested, he had the presence of mind to suck up to Trump by suggesting that he became involved because he believed that there was funny business regarding the 2020 presidential election.

Is that angling for a pardon? I don't claim to know the accused's thinking, but it may be.

[Riva]

That's asinine. Whatever else this defendant is, he is certainly not one of the thousands of innocent protesters victimized by Biden's political prosecutions.

[Armchair]

"The New York Times reports:"

Skipped.

[not guilty]

For the benefit of those who would discount the Times reporting, I also linked the memorandum filed with the District Court by the Trump Justice Department regarding pretrial detention.

[SRG2]

Don't you know one of the principles of the anti-reality right? Once a story has been reported by MSM, it is false regardless of all documents, including primary sources such as the court filing quoted by MSM, that support it.

[Armchair]

"Here's 23 pages of documents that I won't quote a single thing from, but use the NY Times -reporting- to quote from instead".

Funny how that happens. Here's what should be quoted.

"The defendant has confessed to planting explosive devices outside the headquarters of the nation’s two major political parties in downtown Washington, D.C. He has confessed to constructing the pipe bombs, to filling them with explosive powder, and to setting their timers to detonate. The evidence gathered in law enforcement’s investigation in this case corroborates the
defendant’s confession. And it establishes that these explosive devices were viable weapons. Put simply, the defendant poses an uncommonly serious danger to the community if released pending trial. For nearly five years, the defendant has evaded law enforcement and avoided accountability for actions that endangered lives and created a widespread sense of fear
and terror. The community should not be subjected to the risk that the defendant, now identified and facing a public prosecution, will again resort to violence as his chosen means to express his
dissatisfaction with the world around him. There is simply no combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the community’s safety if the defendant is released, and he should be
detained pending trial in this case. "

duh.

[not guilty]

Links. Figure them out.

As a yellow dog Democrat, I know that I am as subject to confirmation bias as the next fellow. That is why I provide legal authorities and original source materials.

How many of my critics can say the same?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In the public first hint at a motive in the case, the documents said that the man, Brian J. Cole Jr., felt he needed to “speak up” after he began to suspect that the 2020 election, in which President Trump was defeated, had been “tampered with.”

The article notes that he at first denied it, but then was shown visual evidence. Of course, BARD requirements are still high.

If he is angling for a pardon, he has a model to follow:

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/14/2025-19928/granting-pardons-for-certain-offenses-related-to-the-2020-presidential-election

That is rather open-ended, and maybe, in spirit at least, Trump will think he should be included in Trump's largesse.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely crazy playoff scenario in the NFC South.

You'd think that Carolina and Tampa Bay would control.their own destiny when they meet head to head next week because the Saints and the Falcons have been eliminated from the division title.

But its actually the Falcon that control who wins the division. If they win their last two games against Rams and Saints then Carolina couldn't lose the division even if the wanted to, and the Bucs can't win it even if they beat the Panthers.

If all three teams end up 8-9 then Carolina wins the three way tiebreaker, even though they would lose a 2 way tiebreaker against Tampa by SOV, if they both end up 8-9.

Its not out of the question for Atlanta to beat the Rams tomorrow, especially since the Rams have been eliminated from the number 1 seed, and they have already clinched a playoff spot, they might start resting starters week 17.

[Frank Drackman]

Sad thing is this is the most notice the Falcons have gotten since Superbowl LI (best halftime show OAT btw)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

We could once again see a team with a losing record win that division.

[hobie]

As a lifelong Saints fan, I rarely have any feelings of pressure come the post season.

[Michael P]

David Frum at https://x.com/davidfrum/status/2005270380739752216?s=46 :

Since 2015, Canada has tripled its Indigenous spending - paying more than on national defense. Over those same years, Indigenous people have suffered a catastrophic collapse in health and well-being: on average almost a full decade of lost life expectancy.

This is a recurring problem with many forms of charity: it pours good money after bad, enabling people to keep making poor choices. Grants need to be coupled with responsibility and accountability, with an expectation of growth and change rather than a fixed mindset. The hard part is that the kind of responsibility, accountability, growth and change often depend on the particular situation. It's usually impractical to prescribe those from a central government or even a state capitol.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, this is why you should never confuse "charity" and "entitlements".

Actual charity usually does involve responsibility and individual attention. Entitlements, as the name suggests, treats the support as something the person is legally entitled to, and thus is not obligated to do anything in return for it.

Well, except for voting for whoever gave them the loot...

[SRG2]

Entitlements, as the name suggests, treats the support as something the person is legally entitled to, and thus is not obligated to do anything in return for it.

That is of course the modern usage, a right-wing propaganda reframe. For something like social security, the entitlement is in response to something recipients did beforehand - like paying into it.

[Michael P]

Social Security looks more like a pyramid scheme than a retirement plan. It's an entitlement to someone else's future payments, and perhaps the largest wealth transfer ever. It's further a transfer from working young to the predominantly more wealthy old -- impressing the former from building their own nest eggs.

What about Medicaid -- is that an entitlement for being poor just before they payout? Same for SNAP and TANF?

[David Nieporent]

Neither of those framings is accurate; in U.S. parlance, the category of entitlement has nothing to do with actually being legally entitled to anything, whether for doing something or not. An entitlement program is one which sets eligibility criteria and then instructs the treasury to pay funds to everyone who meets those criteria, regardless of total cost. Social security and Medicare fit in that category. (But Congress can change that at any time; there's no vested right to the money, the way there is for, say, health insurance benefits or a pension.) In contrast, non-entitlement programs — Head Start is an example — appropriate a certain amount of money each year, and if that appropriation runs out, no more benefits are paid out, regardless of eligibility.

None of this discussion seems to have much of anything to do with the Canadian situation, though; the Frum article isn't about charity or entitlements.

[hobie]

"This is a recurring problem with many forms of charity: it pours good money after bad, enabling people to keep making poor choices. "

Which of the two mentioned 'charity' expenditures are we talking about here: Military or welfare?

[Moderation4ever]

Welfare, because wasteful military spending is never questioned.

[DDHarriman]

Between ZOG and MIC, we're fucked.

[Malika la Maize]

This is a reason why I’m fine with some kind of work/volunteer/education requirements for many federal benefits.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've said before that the CCC is about the only thing I think FDR got right: Requiring labor and providing training in return for the support.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ccc was because he knew WWII was coming…

[Magister]

FDR knew in 1933? The Great Depression was adequate reason for the New Deal and for that program.

[bernard11]

I've said before that the CCC is about the only thing I think FDR got right

So much for deposit insurance, among other things.

[David Nieporent]

"Are there no workhouses?"

[Moderation4ever]

I read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that end of the year charitable donations are down. I would again like to point out that this fact confirms my assertion that charities can not replace government social safety net. I do very much believe that charities do have an important role in complimenting the safety nets, but charities can not be relied upon alone for addressing social needs. As is our habit my wife and I have made out own contribution to our charities in December and have increased our donation. The increase has been in response to increasing needs in the community. I do not expect our increases would every make up for the basic safety nets the government provides.

[Malika la Maize]

Charity is very important, but, yes, if charity could have handled everything it would have.

[David Nieporent]

Government programs crowd out charity, both psychologically and financially.

Also, Moderation4ever's metaphor is broken. A literal safety net is the last safeguard, not the first. Charities shouldn't be complementing (let alone complimenting!) government programs; they should be the first resort. The government —if acting as a safety net — should be for those who fall through the cracks of private charity, not the reverse.

[Malika la Maize]

This seems largely right, my point was that many government programs got their start to deal with problems that private charity did not seem up to addressing sufficiently.

[Randal]

The government — if acting as a safety net — should be for those who fall through the cracks of private charity, not the reverse.

Private charity is the biggest joke ever played on America.

My friend has a small farm, and his charity work is to pick up the vast quantities of food that got donated to the local food pantry and spoiled before it was needed by anyone. Just truckloads full of expired milk, moldy bread, rotting fruit, etc. Most of it he just throws away, but not after having to open and dispose of the 1000 plastic containers it came in. As much as possible becomes chicken or pig feed, but there's too much even for that.

We have these charity auctions where someone donates a $100 bottle of wine (and takes it as a tax deduction), and then someone buys it for $100 (and takes it as tax deduction). I think it's not technically supposed to work that way, but that's how it always works. I'm sure there are ways of extending that to more steps, so that N people all get to pretend like they made the same single $100 donation.

In the US, there's no limit on how little a non-profit charity can get away with spending on charitable work. The Disabled Veterans National Foundation spends just $5 of every $100 donated on actual disabled veterans. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation spends only $47. (Some countries, like Singapore, require at least 70% of donations to be spent on the charitable purpose.) The rest of the money goes go things like catered fundraising galas aka parties for the elite.

When you combine all of the above — grossly inefficient use of resources, double-counting donations, and self-dealing — each one amplifies the other. US charities are a scam and a half.

The only ones doing actual good are the big, endowed foundations like Bill Gates', since they a) have some incentive to use their endowment effectively (compared to other people's donations, who really cases about them) and b) have some planning capacity to set and follow through on impact goals, like "eradicate polio." But people hate rich philanthropists even more than they hate the government. No one wants undemocratic Bill Gates to be a powerful NGO.

The government turns out to be the lesser of evils when it comes to the best way to provide for the needy. It's both (somewhat) democratic and (somewhat) efficient.

[Magister]

If someone donated a bottle of wine, they should be able to deduct the value of that bottle of wine and no more; deducting a very large amount might require the taxpayer to produce some documentation of its actual value.

If someone purchases a bottle of wine for $100, they are really only allowed to deduct $100 minus the value of the bottle of wine.

While difficult to enforce, it seems to be the correct policy if charitable donations are to be tax deductible.

[Randal]

(Un)surprisingly, the person donating the bottle of wine always says "well, it went for $100 at auction, so that's how much it's worth."

And the person buying it says, "the charity got this for free, so my entire $100 is a donation."

For your policy to work in practice (which is the actual, unenforced rule I think), the charity would have to assess the wine and tell both the donor and buyer the value. But they don't want to do that, of course! No one wants to be told that their $100 donation is only valued at $20, or that they just bought a $20 bottle of wine for $100. The whole enterprise depends on allowing both sides of the transaction to enjoy the fantasy that they're dealing in expensive merchandise for charitable ends. It's pretty gross, actually.

[David Nieporent]

And the person buying it says, "the charity got this for free, so my entire $100 is a donation."

That is not in fact remotely how it works. How much the charity paid for it has literally zilch to do with it. The issue is the FMV of the item one receives, whether it's something purchased at auction or a tote bag one gets for making a donation.

No one wants to be told that their $100 donation is only valued at $20, or that they just bought a $20 bottle of wine for $100.

No, people do want to be told the latter, because they know it's a charitable donation that way. As for the former, it's not up to the charity to decide how much your donation is worth. It's up to you at the time you make the donation, and if you're audited you need to be able to substantiate whatever you claim.

[Randal]

You seem to be confused between how it does work vs how it should work. Magister and I have been clear which one we're talking about at any time.

[Magister]

Yes, in practice people cheat on their taxes in many small ways, some of them even unaware they are doing so.

If the donated item were amazingly valuable (e.g., things that auction for millions of dollars) then the IRS would have an incentive to investigate the actual value. They could perhaps implement something like 1099s so that disagreements like the wine example between donor and purchaser would become evident, but it would certainly only apply to very high values. It is easier with things that have a face value (e.g., tickets to some event, even if they could be scalped for more than the price shown on them).

[bernard11]

And the person buying it says, "the charity got this for free, so my entire $100 is a donation."

I don't think this is the way it works. The only way a buyer gets a deduction is if he pays more than market value. Buying a $15 T-shirt for $15 doesn't get you a deduction. Buying it for $100 gets you an $85 deduction. I routinely get letters acknowledging contributions that state something like, "You received nothing of value in exchange for your contribution."

The cost to the charity is irrelevant.

[bernard11]

Except for publicly traded securities, there is hardly anything whose market value is easier to determine than a bottle of wine.

[David Nieporent]

First, your argument is reminiscent of the MAGA arguments about Minneapolis right now: "I know someone who's a fraud, so therefore the whole idea is a fraud."

Second, what kind of bass-ackwards food pantries do they have in your neck of the woods? I've never seen one that accepts anything other than non-perishable goods. (I mean, or cash, of course.) Are you confusing food pantries with soup kitchens, which actually make and serve meals?

[Randal]

I agree that the food pantry anecdote is anecdotal. But it gets at a real problem: small charities aren't well positioned to allocate resources efficiently.

If your anti-government fervor runs so high that you're willing to settle for grossly inefficient private charities, so be it. Donate your heart out to Kars4Kids, knowing that the vast majority of your donations go to fund the most irritating of all advertising campaigns. I guess it's a choice.

But it's the opposite of the normal "private market" theory of efficiency. The government is the efficient option here, compared to private charities.

If you want to think of charities as a market, who are the market participants? Not the actual needy, is the problem. It's a market between fundraisers and donors. What are their incentives? Social-climbing, power-brokering, tax breaks and smugness, mainly. Private charities are great at optimizing for those things.

And that's before we even get to actual bona fide fraud. I'm just talking about the structural problems.

[David Nieporent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjX4-LKqCA

[Randal]

As a coda to the above... man, people really like to donate the worst garbage. Tons of skim milk and pastries. Starving people aren't usually trying to slim down, in case you haven't noticed. And it's hard to live on croissants alone. Calories and nutrients, people!

[Commenter_XY]

Beggars really can be choosers. Who knew?

[bernard11]

You know, I once saw a homeless guy walking down my street, looking through garbage cans and the like.

I had a suit I was getting rid of, because it no longer fit and I didn't need it anyway. I yelled at the guy, offering him the suit. He looked around, looked at my overweight self, and said, "No. It wouldn't fit," and went on his way.

Beggars can have dignity too, despite what you think. Don't be so quick to sneer.

[Moderation4ever]

This opinion piece below caught my eye while reading the Sunday New York Times. Brian Groh talks about his transition to manual labor, tree trimming, after A.I. took away his day job writing copy. Mr. Groh enjoyed the tree trimming work and actually made more money than from his copy work. But he noted that he was 52 years old and the physical demands of the work were catching up to him. Leaving him wondering how much longer he would be able to work. I see this as a cautionary tale of what AI will bring. It is likely that trades will be safe from A.I. but trades can also be physically demanding and most people will be limited in the amount of years they can do the work. Now let's be clear I am not a Luddite. A.I. will come because technology can not really be stopped from moving forward. The real challenge we will face is not stopping or regulating A.I. but rather in making the social adjustments it will require. Handling higher levels of unemployment will be one of the problems that must be addressed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/28/opinion/artificial-intelligence-jobs.html
(This may be paywalled, I provide the link with out a guarantee of access).

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like Peter in “Office Space” going from writing Code for the Y2K problem (remember how “Experts” said Airliners would be falling from the sky?) to working Construction,
Nephew of mine works as a “Roust-about” (I like the cool job title and that it was an Elvis movie) in OK, makes way more than his siblings in Ed-Jew-ma-cation. (OTOH they haven’t had both Rotator Cuffs done)
“Jewish Roustabout” could be a new “Reality Show”
Frank “I’ll fix the jigger on Pump 6 when you give me my “Get”

[ducksalad]

It is likely that trades will be safe from AI

No. Trades have been under successful "attack" from AM (Artificial Muscle) for more than two centuries. No reason to believe the combination of AI and AM, also known as robotics, will not continue to make even more inroads into the trades.

Right now there's a brief moment when it's easier for an AI developer (that might itself be AI...) to take over a task that's normally carried out completely on a computer. It's really just that most conventionally trained programmers are more comfortable with the inputs/outputs being files or consoles rather than sensors and actuators. But there are plenty of the second type at work right now.

We'll quickly see AI applied to general purpose mobile robotic platforms with articulation comparable to, and then better than, a human arm. At which point they can replace electricians and plumbers. Tree trimming is actually one of the easier ones.

Side note: my brother-in-law is an MD specializing in ob-gyn surgery. Surgery is lot like tree trimming if you think about it. His days are getting boring because a robot now does stuff like fibroid removal and hysterectomies while he sends texts like "gotta go I'm supposed to be watching the robot". It's not a technical limitation at all, it's just that right now the robot is expensive and has to be doing something that pays $10,000/day. That price point will change.

Not how we thought it would turn out. Doctors replaced with robots first, then the highest paid trades, lawn mowing last. Because it's no longer technical, it's economic.

[Riva]

Yeah, uh huh. If a practicing ob-gyn actually sends out texts like "gotta go I'm supposed to be watching the robot," then he should be replaced, lose his license to practice medicine, and/or be sued.

[ducksalad]

So you think he should or shouldn't stop texting when the surgery starts? Your extremely stupid opinions aren't limited to politics, economics, and law. Now it's medicine as well.

[David Nieporent]

It's just a bad faith reading — I know, shocker, right? — from the bot. Obviously the hypothetical text was sent at the time the surgery was set to commence, not in the middle of the surgery. (Your quote could have been read either way, but one assumes that your brother-in-law is stupid and the other does not.)

[ducksalad]

Well, I'd like to hope that, considering that he's a relative. Actually not 100% certain.

He's a guy with a self-driving truck who told me he was waiting for the future software upgrade that would stop monitoring his face to make sure he was looking at the road. And he's close to retiring anyway.

Fortunately we keep our financial affairs unentangled. So if his massive wealth (as much from risky crypto as from medical practice) gets taken in a lawsuit my modest retirement is still safe.

[Bunny495]

My Daddy was a medical doctor way back when they actually did things like house calls. Something he said that still sticks with me today is 'your Mother made more money investing the money I made as a doctor than I ever made as a doctor'.

[Frank Drackman]

Joke in Medical Screw-el was the Neurosurgeon complaining to his Plumber that he couldn’t afford the costs of the repair and the Plumber says
“That’s what I used to say when I was a Neurosurgeon”

Frank

[santamonica811]

I've made WAY more money investing in real estate than I have in 30 years as a lawyer. (Of course, I admit that the legal income made it possible to invest in real estate to begin with.) Probably $3 in real estate for every $1 I've made in the legal biz.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Obviously the hypothetical text was sent at the time the surgery was set to commence, not in the middle of the surgery."

As someone who's communicated, "Gotta go I'm supposed to be..." over loads of mediums during various activities over the years, it's not obvious to me.

[Riva]

You actually failed to grasp my meaning? Not really the sharpest troll in the shed are we? Certainly not a brain surgeon, in keeping with the general theme of medicine.

And if crazy Dave is coming to your rescue you might be in a little trouble. But trolls seem to travel in packs here. Incredibly stupid, malodorous packs, but they seem to like each other,

[Malika la Maize]

When people regularly don’t get one’s meaning many might think it’s something with them, not the many. But bots aren’t self-aware.

[not guilty]

"Yeah, uh huh. If a practicing ob-gyn actually sends out texts like 'gotta go I'm supposed to be watching the robot,' then he should be replaced, lose his license to practice medicine, and/or be sued."

For sending a text, which likely was tongue in cheek? Would you prefer that the robot go unmonitored?

[Michael P]

We'll quickly see AI applied to general purpose mobile robotic platforms with articulation comparable to, and then better than, a human arm. At which point they can replace electricians and plumbers. Tree trimming is actually one of the easier ones.

This will result in a flood of new work for lawyers (most of which will probably be AI...) as the extant problems with hallucinations and the like result in work being done incorrectly, unsafely and otherwise incurring civil and/or criminal liability.

Just look at how long it has taken to get even constrained versions of AI to manage AM in the very old and well-understood form of horseless carriages. In recent news, it turns out they still cannot handle power outages that disable traffic lights, and need human intervention when anything gets caught in a door.

[Moderation4ever]

We know that overall the AI driven vehicles are safer on the roads. That is not to say they are perfect, but the AI is not speeding because they are late, the AI is not talking on a phone and the AI is checking lights and corners for pedestrians. Where you are right is an AI driven vehicle accident will result in a lawsuit, because the owners have deep pockets. The last time a human driver rear ended my vehicle there were no lawsuits because the other driver had no insurance and was a minimum wage workers.

[Michael P]

The AI-driven vehicles are also limited to a much smaller set of conditions than humans deal with. This is particularly relevant because driving is a simpler problem -- both in collecting training data and clarifying outcomes -- than things like tree trimming, plumbing and electrical work.

I'll believe robots are ready to start tackling those problems -- not solve them -- once we have SAE autonomy level 5 systems.

[ducksalad]

SAE autonomy level 5 doesn't seem that far away.

My maybe-too-early adopter brother-in-law that lets the robot remove tumors* also purchased the periodic software upgrade option for his self-driving Tesla pickup.

Until last month, the software had a requirement that he be in the truck for it to move. In the last release, it allows valet mode in parking lots. He stands by the door of the restaurant and calls it on his phone, it comes empty and picks him up. It won't go on a public street empty, so it can't come from home to pick him up at the office. But it's clear it could do that if they removed the geofence.

Wouldn't you call that a very solid SAE level 4, at least?

[Michael P]

Wouldn't you call that a very solid SAE level 4, at least?

No, because I've actually read the definitions of SAE autonomy levels. Tesla is on the advanced side of level 2: the mode you describe requires continuous driver oversight.

I think Mercedes-Benz is the first and still only brand to offer Level 3 autonomy in the US, in their "Drive Pilot" feature. Waymo and Cruise have Level 4 fleets, but you can't buy those and their geofences are quite restrictive.

[ducksalad]

Fair enough, I only read the brief descriptions.

However, it seems like your definition of "requires" oversight means we don't yet trust it enough to not do the oversight, with trust being in part a subjective thing.

It's not that without the oversight it would generally fail to accomplish the task, or would objectively fail at a rate higher than humans.

[Michael P]

I have a general idea of how aircraft and aircraft system safety works, and more specifics about how those apply to CNS/ATM systems. I don't know the specifics of how functional safety standards and automobile safety approvals work, but I expect they are similar enough that there is much less "trust" than you probably think.

That is not to say that there's less subjectivity than you think, but it's probably more narrowly applied than you think. For aviation, subjectivity is near its peak when deciding what level of involvement a regulator needs to use, but there is much less when actually designing a system or evaluating its hazards and safety effects.

In aviation, there is a huge focus on expected rates of the various hazards, especially at major, hazardous or catastrophic levels; injury to any person, physical discomfort to flight crew, "significant reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities" or similar effects are at least major. There are prescribed techniques to use when analyzing those hazards and evaluating their likelihoods, and they step up with hazard severity.

Again, automotive safety is different in details and perhaps some approaches (due to applying ISO 26262 and ASIL instead of ARP4754/DO-178/DO-254 and DAL), but there is probably a lot more rigor and less trust in approving vehicle autonomy than you think.

[ducksalad]

Thanks, very informative. I was misinterpreting "requires" as needing it to function, as in a prototype demonstration, when in this context you've made clear that it means needing it to reach some specified risk level.

[ducksalad]

Just look at how long it has taken to get even constrained versions of AI to manage AM in the very old and well-understood form of horseless carriages. In recent news, it turns out they still cannot handle power outages that disable traffic lights, and need human intervention when anything gets caught in a door.

Yeah, around 1905 there were probably stable owners saying stuff like "I hear those carburetors can clog" or "what about flat tires, huh? HUH? Gotcha!" as supposed proof that cars would never take over.

I do agree with you that liability will be an issue. Not because the AI is more dangerous - it's probably already a better driver on average, and will certainly and provably be in a year or two - but because of the way our legal system works.

Uninsured neighbor backs over your kid and breaks his leg: $50K, trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case, and low probability of getting fully paid.

Self-driving Tesla backs over your kid and breaks his leg: $500M, swarms of top lawyers itching to take the case, and Tesla sends a check a few days after the verdict is final.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, around 1905 there were probably stable owners saying stuff like "I hear those carburetors can clog" or "what about flat tires, huh? HUH? Gotcha!" as supposed proof that cars would never take over.

Over 40 years ago, the then-unheralded baseball analyst Bill James observed something that stuck with me:¹ people hold new statistics to a much higher standard than existing ones. He was trying to get people to understand that on-base percentage was a more useful metric than batting average, and would always get pushback, "But OBP counts walks the same as hits, even though hits are more valuable, so it's flawed." True, but batting average counts singles the same as home runs, even though the difference between those is bigger than the difference between singles and walks. And yet those critics were not at all bothered by that facet of batting average.² Why? Just because they were used to it.

It doesn't matter that self-driving cars will make many fewer mistakes than human drivers; people are used to the latter and accept them as the cost of driving. Since self-driving cars will make different mistakes, people aren't used to them and will automatically treat them as worse, as reasons not to adopt the new technology.

¹I'm not claiming it's original to James, or that it's incredibly profound, but it's where I first encountered it at age 10 or so, so that's where I always firs tassociate it.
² Batting average also counts walks as worth zero, which is less accurate than counting them as hits.

[loki13]

I think that while you are correct, there's another factor that comes into play when it comes to self-driving cars. The same thing we have with planes.

The illusion of control. We all know, and have for some time, that statistically flying is much safer than driving. In terms of fatalities, flying is about 200 times safer. In terms of serious accidents (that aren't fatalities), it's much much much safer than even that (because ... well, think about it).

And the numbers kinda sorta have to be like that. Because people can know that, and yet ... they still have a false sense of security when driving because they have the illusion of control. Never mind the fact that they aren't actually in control - you can't control a drunk driver or a semi crashing into you.

Taking that control away- even if it is statistically safer- is a hard sell for many.

Also? People are really bad at statistics. That too.

[ducksalad]

I think that while you are both correct, there's a yet another factor. People object to some ways of dying much more than others, even if the amount of suffering is equivalent.

Personally I just don't like the idea of being ripped apart by a bear or cougar, somehow it seems worse than the same damage inflicted by a lathe accident or chain saw kickback.

Many people seem to think being killed for their racial identity is worse than being killed for their money.

And several commenters here apparently think being stabbed by an undocumented alien is many times more horrific than being stabbed by a native-born white person.

I don't have any particular fear of software bugs or camera failures, so I did fine the two times I was in a self-driving vehicle.

[David Nieporent]

Many people seem to think being killed for their racial identity is worse than being killed for their money.

In a sense that comes back to the control issue, though. A robbery is targeting you based on something you did — have money around to tempt robbers — and you can at least contemplate things to do to keep that from happening. On the other hand, a racial attack is something that just happens at random, based on who you are, that you have no control over .

[Magister]

The prospect seems worse in that one might avoid being killed for one's money by giving one's wallet to a mugger, while it would be hard to give up one's racial identity. And those motivated to hate crimes may want to torment their victims before killing them, and terrorize others of the same racial identity, to an extent that robbers would not.

[Bunny495]

Can't remember the title of the folk song from back in the 1960s but it had something to do with John Henry; the lyrics still stick in my mind:

My father was a miner's son, and a miner still is he
but his eyes they caught a fever and there is shaken in his knee.
The holes are closing rapidly, he can not understand,
Machine has got a bigger arm than him or any other man.

[Malika la Maize]

Corporate bankruptcies surged in 2025, rivaling levels not seen since the immediate aftermath of the Great Recession, as import-dependent businesses absorbed the highest tariffs in decades.

At least 717 companies filed for bankruptcy through November, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. That’s roughly 14 percent more than the same 11 months of 2024, and the highest tally since 2010.

Companies cited inflation and interest rates among the factors contributing to their financial challenges, as well as Trump administration trade policies that have disrupted supply chains and pushed up costs.

But in a shift from previous years, the rise in filings is most apparent among industrials — companies tied to manufacturing, construction and transportation. The sector has been hit hard by President Donald Trump’s ever-fluid tariff policies — which he’s long insisted would revive American manufacturing. The manufacturing sector lost more than 70,000 jobs in the one-year period ending in November, federal data shows.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/27/corporate-bankruptcies-economy/

[Krayt]

Inflation is awful! No it isn't!

Which side is which? You can't tell. It switched in only 3 years.

[Randal]

Weird. I don't recall anyone ever being anything other than anti-inflation. Are you sure those aren't implanted memories, Krayt? Implanted by your maggot brain worm?

[Joe_dallas]

FYI - bankruptcies are typically several years in the making.

[Malika la Maize]

Is that why this current trend started several years after Trump’s first term?

[Joe_dallas]

Think about - I realize normal critical thinking skills are beyond your capacity - though give it a try.

[Malika la Maize]

So you’ve no response?

[Joe_dallas]

You comment was both stupid and showed you lacked any comprehension of the subject matter. Should I written a dissertation of why your response was inane or should I have let you wallow in your ignorance?

Everyone with any rudimentary knowledge of the subject would have understood my original response.

[Malika la Maize]

Again, so you have no response?

[Joe_dallas]

My original comment which you responded to provided everyone with more than sufficient information demonstrating that your response showed your ignorance. Keep doubling down on your ignorance.

[Malika la Maize]

You’ve now written several paragraphs in several posts without providing any substantive response. We all know you’ve got nothing.

[Joe_dallas]

My original comment was more than sufficient to provide the substantive rebuttal to the WP article and your attempt to attribute to increase in bankruptcies to trump.

Its not my fault you are too stupid to figure it out.

[Malika la Maize]

No wonder you keep dodging.

If bankruptcies are several years in the making then the sudden upturn in bankruptcies in 2023 started when who was President, jd?

[Malika la Maize]

Thailand and Cambodia agreed to an immediate ceasefire on Saturday, after weeks of deadly border clashes that unraveled a peace deal championed by President Donald Trump in late October.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/27/thailand-cambodia-ceasefire-border-clashes/

[SRG2]

Ah but Trump negotiated the new ceasefire just by thinking about it, so he should get the credit.

[loki13]

The advantage of Trump declaring peace without having solved the conflict ... is that he can just declare that he resolved it again and again and again, and keep adding to the PEACE TALLY!

Just think of how many wars he will have ended between Thailand and Cambodia by the end of his four years! I mean, that alone is probably, what... worth eighty Peace Prizes from FIFA?

[Joe_dallas]

Quite a few world leaders have negotiated cease fires and truces that fail after a few weeks or months. Its takes a serious case of TDS to attack trump over this issue.

[SRG2]

Being accused of TDS by a cultist is like being accused of HDS by a Scientologist.

[loki13]

Some time ago in the comments, I went through the list to try and understand where the numbers were coming from (Trump's claimed "ended wars"). I did my best to be fair. For example, I gave him full credit for Armenia and Azerbaijan, even though I would argue that he didn't have much to do with it personally*- but he did host the actual signing.

*The groundwork was already put in place well before that, and it was regional changes, not the US, that led to the peace framework. Still, I was trying to be generous.

What I found was two things-
1. Even in the most generous assessment, he was just lying. Inflating numbers.

2. Even trying to be generous to him, he was trying to take credit for ending conflicts that he had nothing to do with (e.g., India/Pakistan) or that were still ongoing (e.g., Rwanda/Congo) or that weren't actually wars but were disputes and ... are still unresolved (e.g., Egypt and Ethiopia) and on and on and on.

That's the problem- real, lasting, actual peace between real, actual adversaries? It's not easy. If it was, anyone could do it. It takes work and dedication and ... well, you have to enjoy delayed gratification. Posting on social media that something is "solved," with no actual follow-through? That doesn't result in peace.

Basically, you get the same thing you see with his economic "deals"- Trump gets to make some announcement ("We'll get 15 trillion dollars") and then? Nothing. No commitments. Trump gets to talk about something, and since there is no actual real deal with binding commitments (the thing that takes the work), there is no real change. It's all about the PR for one day, not any actual substantive change.

As it stands, I'd give him 1 1/2. Armenia and Azerbaijan (full credit) and ... 1/2 credit on Israel and Hamas for now, with that changing to either full or no credit depending on what happens in the future. Of course, we are also stoking war with Venezuela (and/or Columbia), so there's that. I'll leave Greenland (Denmark) out of this, because ... that's just kind of crazy. ....right?

[ducksalad]

The new special Greenland envoy has (a) not given up his day job, and (b) walked back some stuff Trump said.

So it looks like this one's pretty safe, relatively speaking.

[David Nieporent]

As it stands, I'd give him 1 1/2. Armenia and Azerbaijan (full credit) and

Dammit, get it straight: it's Albania and Azerbaijan whose war he ended. (And he does deserve full credit; those two haven't filed a single shot at each other since!)

[Malika la Maize]

Trump has claimed credit for ending multiple wars around the world…

The numerous deals have also given Trump another thing to boast about. Last week, Trump renamed the United States Institute of Peace as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace and accepted the inaugural FIFA peace prize, a consolation for losing out on the Nobel Peace Prize he coveted...

On July 28, “after the involvement of President Donald J. Trump, both Countries have reached a CEASEFIRE and PEACE,” Trump announced on Truth Social. “I am proud to be the President of PEACE!” The violence continued for months.

https://time.com/7339536/trump-peace-deals-conflicts-status-thailand-cambodia/

[David Nieporent]

Quite a few world leaders have negotiated cease fires and truces that fail after a few weeks or months. Its takes a serious case of TDS to attack trump over this issue.

As always, MAGA miss the point. Trump isn't being criticized because a peace deal fell apart. He is not (necessarily) to blame for that. He's being criticized for vaingloriously having taken credit for something illusory. As always, he treats getting a laudatory headline (even if it's one he has to manufacture for himself!) as the accomplishment. Even though actual peace deals are not about handshakes or signing ceremonies, but about facts on the ground.

A normal non-narcissist would have waited to see if it stuck before boasting about his alleged achievement and petulantly whining that he wasn't being recognized by the Nobel committee for it.

[Riva]

Did Biden think a lot about the withdrawal from Afghanistan? Perhaps he did. Just not about the lives of those serving in the Marines, Army or Navy.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s only programmed to whatabout.

[Riva]

No, 3rd string troll, I'm drawing a comparison between the sitting competent president who cares about military and civilian lives and whatever Biden was,

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, what about Biden. We get it, even if your programming doesn’t.

[Riva]

Glad you "get it" and I appreciate that you're shamed and embarrassed about the "Biden" administration. Join the club.

[Malika la Maize]

It still eludes his programming. But, bots are not self-aware.

[Nelson]

“ Did Biden think a lot about the withdrawal from Afghanistan?”

The first Trump administration planned, negotiated, and signed the Afghanistan withdrawal. The Department of Defense under Biden just implemented what the Department of Defense under Trump planned. Unless you think Biden was President in February, 2020?

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

[Michael P]

They realized that Trump was right in the first place, showing that they are smarter than you.

[Malika la Maize]

Right when he declared he had brought about peace?

From PBS:

Fighting raged Saturday morning along the border of Thailand and Cambodia, even after U.S. President Donald Trump, acting as a mediator, declared that he had won agreement from both countries for a new ceasefire.

Thai officials said they did not agree to a ceasefire. Cambodia has not commented directly on Trump's claim, but its defense ministry said Thai jets carried out airstrikes Saturday morning.

Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said Saturday that some of Trump's remarks didn't "reflect an accurate understanding of the situation."

He said Trump's characterization of a land mine explosion that wounded Thai soldiers as a "roadside accident" was inaccurate, and did not reflect Thailand's position that it was a deliberate act of aggression.

Sihasak said that Trump's willingness to credit what may be "information from sources that deliberately distorted the facts" instead of believing Thailand hurt the feelings of the Thai people "because we consider ourselves — we are proud, in fact — to be the oldest treaty ally of the United States in the region."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/fighting-rages-on-thailand-cambodia-border-despite-trumps-claimed-ceasefire

[Malika la Maize]

An Oklahoma man was doing target practice on Thursday, Christmas Day, with a handgun he had bought himself when he fatally shot a woman who was sitting with two children on a neighboring front porch, the authorities said.

The man, Cody Wayne Adams, 33, was charged with first-degree manslaughter after the woman, who lived less than half a mile away, collapsed and died after she was shot once while sitting with family members in Comanche, Okla., about 96 miles southwest of Oklahoma City.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/28/us/oklahoma-shooting-neighbor-christmas.html

[Moderation4ever]

Well looks like we have the "Stupid Gun Owner of the Week" winner. I like the part that houses in the neighborhood that had shooting ranges also had proper stop mechanisms, except this idiot's. I remember the game warden talks to new hunters. "You always look not just at the target, but also what is beyond the target, because that where the bullet is going if you miss."

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I never did get that .50 BMG rifle I lusted after back when I lived in Michigan: My back yard was only half a mile deep.

[Moderation4ever]

There wasn't a range you could go to shoot the gun?

[Frank Drackman]

Not many allow 50 caliber ammo, (or Armor Piercing, such as the Steel Core 7.62X39 ammo that was available in the 90's, remember shooting at this nice range that had these really nice Steel plate targets, my AK shot right through them, I was asked not to come back)
Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I had a backyard that was a half mile deep, why would I deliberately buy a gun that would require me to start going to a range any time I felt like doing some plinking?

[Magister]

Well, why did you lust after it? That might provide sufficient reason.

[Riva]

Uh huh. And "ARMED CITIZEN HELPS STOP TERRIFYING MASS STABBING IN MICHIGAN"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250804/armed-citizen-helps-stop-terrifying-mass-stabbing-in-michigan

Not the only case of a brave armed citizen stopping violence by the way.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s only programmed to whatabout.

[Riva]

No again, I am pointing out that your insinuation that gunowners are irresponsibly causing violence is not accurate. You're not a 3rd string troll for nothing. Mindlessly cutting and pasting the same idiotic response? Nothing robotic there.

[Malika la Maize]

Except I didn’t insinuate anything like that. I posted a story about a guy being an idiot with a gun, any insinuation generalizing about gun owners is an assumption provided by you, bot. If you were a person I’d wonder what strange, cultish fetishization you must suffer from to panic from a single story about a single act of stupidity of a man with a gun and think you have to rush to a whatabout in response.

[Frank Drackman]

Would "Biggie" Smalls be as "Big" as he is today (get it? would "Biggie" be "Big"??) if he hadn't been shot dead in his 20's???
He'd just be another Fat Black Guy on "Yo MTV Raps"
But seriously, folks (HT S. Joe), can you listen to "Hypnotize" and not see yourself cruising in your Cherry M3, Swiftly, with the bulletglass tints? (Bulletproof would have been better for Biggie)

[Riva]

It's cute that you're trying to be clever. It must give you a headache. Just some advice, you might want to avoid phrases like "cultish fetishization" if you're trying to suggest that the purpose of your posts isn't to cast aspersions on gun ownership. But you're rather an idiot so I doubt you even understand my point.

[Malika la Maize]

Again, the only reason insinuation about gun owners generally came from you. If I posted an article about a man doing something stupid with a car would you rush to point out how great cars can be? What a weirdly programmed bot.

[DDHarriman]

Why are Democrats pulling out all stops to defend the rampant, and now looking like nation-wide, refugee day care scams and the others like the EBT grocery store scams?

It blows my mind. Democrats will kneel for murderers and cover up for fraudsters. What sort of sick and evil subhumans are Democrats?

Can a tolerant and well behaved society even tolerate them?

[Malika la Maize]

Lex just asking questions!

[DDHarriman]

Why aren't you? Why isn't the scale of this fraud not causing you to reflect just a little bit?

This was caused, enabled, and now protected by your political tribe. Is there nothing they can do that would make you go "Maybe these people that I "vote for" aren't really governing in my best interests?"

[Malika la Maize]

Virtually no one is defending fraud, be it supporters of Tim Walz (upon whose watch this fraud happened) or Rick Scott or Donald Trump (who did the frauds themselves). There are people who don’t like the bigoted generalizations against Somalis surrounding this, but that’s not defending fraud. You’d just like to get your well documented gassing of others on, it’s pathetically apparent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Simplest explanation is probably that they were getting a cut of it.

But the background problem is that the left have long been caught up in a virtue signaling arms race, where the least radical gets voted off the island. So the minimum acceptable level of radicalism is a moving target, perpetually getting more extreme.

[David Nieporent]

Simplest explanation is probably that they were getting a cut of it.

That is not, in fact, the simplest explanation; it's the stupidest conspiracy theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, granted, the literal simplest explanation for anything is, "Duh, I dono." I meant the simplest explanation with explanatory power.

[David Nieporent]

The literal simplest explanation is that Voltage! is lying.

[Moderation4ever]

Why would Republicans nominate and elect a President who has numerous judgements against him for fraud? Overvaluing properties, Trump University scam, Trump charity scam. Fraud isn't partisan.

[DDHarriman]

Because they were just Democrat political oppression and lawfare.

That's why. And every clear eyed person knows it. No one but your tribe gives a shit.

It's nothing on the scale of the massive and rampant and institutionally supported pillaging of our country by foreigners and Democrats.

We're finding out the entire Democrat Woke NGO complex was all just fraud, graft, and political oppression.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump University frauds were lawfare? lol.

[SRG2]

How can you say Trump U was a fraud? That's where DDHarriman graduated from!

[loki13]

This morning I bothered looking into the latest worm hole (worm in the brain hole?) that I went down to our Dumbest Administration (tm).

That's right, we have a Health Secretary that has claimed that there is "strong" and "good evidence" that the 1918 Flu was caused by ... vaccines.

Now, I know that this is immediately known to be Mas Stupido with anyone with half a brain, but since I can no longer trust that most people have that, I feel it necessary to point out (along the lines of "water is wet," or "the earth is not flat," or "there is not a cabal of lizard people sucking out your adenochrome") the following-

1. The "Spanish Flu" did not originate in Spain, but likely did originate in Kansas. OOSA! The spread is because we were then deploying troops due to WW1.

2. There was no "virology" research on the flue in 1918. We didn't even discover the flu virus until the '30s. Unless ... time machines?

3. Also? We understand how regular flu epidemics (even the bad ones) happen; they spread from animals to humans.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, I was just listening to a podcast about a particular aspect of the Satanic Panic (the explosion of bizarre concepts and ideas that bloomed into a moral panic in the '80s before subsiding in the '90s regarding satanism and satanic cults) ... specifically, the use of backmasking in music (using backwards tracks) and how people began to believe (1) that backmasking could be used to influence people even when it couldn't be understood; and (2) that people began to "hear" all sorts of hidden messages that were not there.

This is just one of many examples of how we can now look back at something (a moral panic- the satanic panic) and see just how incredibly STUPID it is, and yet ... it caused a lot of real harm. We see the same thing today. Fear and ignorance drive out the ability to rationally think about things.

Like this. This is a small thing, but it is emblematic. We have someone in charge of public health who believes the most base nonsense that doesn't pass basic critical thinking (let alone any plausible scientific rigor), and it seems unremarkable- it should be remarkable.

That is the modus operandi of this administration. When every day brings forth fresh outrage and new lies, you gradually become inured to the constant drumbeat, because you understand that tomorrow will bring more.

[Mr. Hook]

I teach a history course that includes a lecture that involves the Satanic Panic of the 80s. It's an exceptional example of the power of faith. There's one anecdote that especially sticks out for me. Late 80s, early 90s, a deputy who was also evangelical was accused by his daughters of molesting them. He couldn't remember molesting them and it certainly went against his beliefs, so he concluded that Satan must have been controlling him and then wiped his memory. He pled guilty and spent several years in jail before his daughters admitted they lied.

That was the thing about believing in a supernatural evil at work—the irrational could be made rational. If backward masking made little sense—our unconscious brains would decipher a backwards message hidden inside a piece of music and it would radically alter our behaviour without us knowing it?—well, isn't that the kind of thing Satan could pull off? Throw in some hucksters and attention-seekers who claimed, yes, I belonged to a Satanic cult and I was present at recording sessions where we plotted with Satan to infect children, and everything fit perfectly … if you wanted to believe. Indeed, the more absurd the claims, the more it seemed the kind of thing Satan would do.

Or the assertion that ten thousand people were murdered every year by Satanic cults going back to the 50s, even tho there were no records of their murders, let alone disappearance. Only Satan could organize so many deaths and also make sure there was no evidence left behind of the victims' existence. Absolutely bonkers, but the power of faith can overcome a lack of evidence.

How many of the peanut gallery here will own up to buying into it all back in the 80s? Around the same percentage who believe in drag show grooming cults and litter boxes in classrooms for kids who identify as cats and Haitians hunting down pets? I mean, c'mon, "Dr" Ed's gotta have some solid stories about Satanic cults operating in Maine and at uMass, right?

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, though, the Satanic Panics weren't limited to true believers in the supernatural. Even many people who didn't really believe in Satan as an actual entity believed that those motivated by worship of Satan were doing these things.

if you wanted to believe.

Bad things did happen. And as with any other conspiracy theory, there is a mindset that finds it more comforting for there to be an overarching organization to the things one is afraid of than for these to be random acts of individuals.

[Mr. Hook]

Right—my apologies for not being more specific. The Panic was made up of a minority who believed in the actual existence of Satan and those who confined the problem to a vast conspiracy of Satanic cults that reached all areas of society. The power of that conspiracy to seemingly accomplish fantastic and grotesque crimes while obliterating the evidence verged on the supernatural. It was more akin to past panics that believed in vast underground networks of Communists, Jews, or Catholics.

[Ridgeway]

"How many of the peanut gallery here will own up to buying into it all back in the 80s? Around the same percentage who believe in drag show grooming cults and litter boxes in classrooms for kids who identify as cats and Haitians hunting down pets? I mean, c'mon, "Dr" Ed's gotta have some solid stories about Satanic cults operating in Maine and at uMass, right?"

Drag-show grooming cults are just the weak-sauce 2020s version of the satanic child molestation rings being run out of daycare centers in the '80s and early '90s. People actually went to jail back then for taking preschoolers on nefarious supersonic magic carpet rides to Mexico, which was among the more credible of the allegations.

[santamonica811]

During law school, I did an internship at the Los Angeles DA's Sex Crimes division during the middle of the McMartin trial(s).

A lot of posters here are too young to remember it, so it's well worth Googling the case, to see how horrific the state acted in withholding evidence from the defense, in conducting dreadful interviews of the children, and a dozen other misdeeds.

Fortunately, the juries got it right. But the false allegations and resulting trials completely destroyed the lives of all the accused.

[Malika la Maize]

The federal government abruptly cut nearly $12 million in grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics in retaliation for criticizing policies of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the organization alleged in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

The organization, in a suit filed against the Department of Health and Human Services, asks a D.C. federal court to block the cuts to seven grants…

The pediatrics association, in its lawsuit, points out that the Trump administration had approved funding for the same programs just months earlier, and other grant recipients under the same programs did not have their funding terminated…

The lawsuit alleges HHS violated the organization’s First Amendment right to free speech, equal protections under the Fifth Amendment, the spending clause of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/12/24/american-academy-pediatrics-lawsuit-hhs/

[Brett Bellmore]

Finding accounts that actually give the administration's side of the story is unsurprisingly difficult.

But piecing it together, there were several causes.

1. The AAP's support for sexually mutilating confused children.
2. The AAP's failure to understand that pregnancy is restricted to women.
3. Racially discriminatory policies by the AAP.

[loki13]

Or, you know, you could join the reality-based (non-bootlicking) community when it comes to sourcing.

AAP vocally opposed what Brain Worm is doing with vaccines.
Brain Worm's Department cuts grants to AAP.

Tough to understand what might have possibly happened, doncha think?

Let alone the whole issue of this administration pioneering the novel strategy of the Executive Branch power to raise revenues, spend money, and cut specific allocated funds as it sees fit. I mean ... you'd think that Brett "I believe that the Constitution Enacts my Strict Understandings" Bellmore might have something to say about that, but ... crickets. As always, the penumbras and emanations of Article II are sufficient when it comes to Brett's understanding of Trump's powers under the Constitution.

[Malika la Maize]

AAP vocally opposed what Brain Worm is doing with vaccines.
Brain Worm's Department cuts grants to AAP.

If that time line occurred with a conservative group and a Democrat HHS Brett would consider it a slam dunk case.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they're going to be grants, (I don't think there should be, government should be limited to it's proper scope, and not allowed to expand that scope by outsourcing.) and democracy is going to actually function, they can't be a way of locking in policies that the voters elected people to oppose.

[Malika la Maize]

What they can’t do in a functioning democracy with rights is terminate the grants because of their speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my complaint was that it was virtually impossible to find any account that gave HHS's side of the matter, instead of just repeating verbatim AAP's talking points.

Of course the AAP is going to allege an impermissible motive. They want to win the case, not lose it. That doesn't mean that the AAP's claims are true.

[loki13]

"And my complaint was that it was virtually impossible to find any account that gave HHS's side of the matter"

I wonder why.

"That doesn't mean that the AAP's claims are true."

Of course the allegations aren't necessarily true (although you seem spectacularly unfamiliar with the actual facts). But ... are you an idiot? I mean that honestly.

This administration has been very upfront about going after institutions and people for their speech- whether through regulation, threats, or funding. It's not exactly a secret.

So, you have an institution that went after Brain Worm's vaccine policies. You have a close temporal proximity to Brain Worm cancelling the grants. In the administration that hasn't been shy about going after people for their speech using this mechanism. They don't have any actual defense of it.

Brett- "Well, I am sure that there must be some other reason that they can't articulate, despite everything I know. I mean, I spent years saying I couldn't say where Obama was born, but here ... I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, amirite? And no, I have no idea why I suddenly shift my burdens like that. I'm sure it has nothing to do with partisan desires. Also, why do people always say I am defending this administration? It's so unfair!"

[David Nieporent]

This administration has been very upfront about going after institutions and people for their speech- whether through regulation, threats, or funding. It's not exactly a secret.

Not only that, but the things Brett identified as what must be the "real reasons" were also speech!

[not guilty]

"Of course the AAP is going to allege an impermissible motive. They want to win the case, not lose it. That doesn't mean that the AAP's claims are true."

Of course. Like any other lawsuit, the burden of proving up the causes of action alleged in the complaint rests upon the plaintiff. That is one reason that we build courthouses.

In other news, water is still wet.

[loki13]

Brett's entire comment, of course, shows again that he refuses to look at any facts, and instead always retreats to defending the undefendable by imagining some greater principle that might have been at issue.

Except it wasn't. Because those weren't the facts. And, of course, he doesn't bother looking at the facts. Or, for that matter, thinking too deeply about what his principle might mean when applied to actual facts.

But sure, let's play that game.

First, of course, he is absolutely wrong about everything w/r/t the facts. Because of course he is- he isn't bothering to try.

Second ... let's talk about the principle! Set aside issues of laws, or the Constitution, or funding. Let's talk about how things work in the "real world" - the ones that we all live in.

A funding source is promised- this is usually an amount of $X for a period of time. It is not just given out- it has to be approved, through various levels of approval with criteria for it (assuming it is not a direct funding stipulation of law). Often, parts of the funding are spent for amounts that will be counted against the whole time frame (a piece of equipment for a two-year project, for example). Other times, decisions will be made based on the grant (hiring for a two-year position based on the grant). There will be conditions on the grant that could lead to its revocation, of course (such as fraud).

Now, in Brett's world, every single time there is a change in office, the new party will be able to unilaterally cancel any and all contracts with people that don't sufficiently praise the incoming administration, and provide those contracts to those who ... donate to ballrooms (for example). Because every election is actually about (in Brett's mind) voters choosing the person that we want corruption and praise going to- and, just as importantly, we are voting to punish people who disagree with the person we elected.

That is what we vote for. Now, it's been a while since I saw schoolhouse rock (and I have never read Brett's Constitution) but I am reasonably certain that the Federalist wasn't premised on enacting Brett's view of voting.

[ducksalad]

The issue was important enough that the Founders included a clause that states could not invalidate contracts.

And then later the fourth section of the 14th Amendment was added, stating that the public debt could not be repudiated. Based on that clause "Chief Justice Hughes stated that when the United States with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to contracts,"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S4-3/ALDE_00013852/

Brett generally recognizes that the constitution - by intention - sometimes limits what voters can do, in this case fail to honor contracts. I think he just needs to think this one through.

[Joe_dallas]

the woke accusing Brett not looking at facts?
As if loki, malika and the rest of the woke gang want to look at facts, logic, nor looking at the broader scope of facts. cherrypicking facts has become the hallmark of leftists.

[Malika la Maize]

ad hominem married to a what-about, that’s jd!

[bernard11]

Idiotic comment.

[not guilty]

"If they're going to be grants, (I don't think there should be, government should be limited to it's proper scope, and not allowed to expand that scope by outsourcing.) and democracy is going to actually function, they can't be a way of locking in policies that the voters elected people to oppose."

Brett, are you okay with the federal government canceling grants in retaliation for the grantees' exercise of First Amendment protected rights?

[not guilty]

I haven't read it yet, but a pdf of the complaint is here: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/AAP-Complaint-as-Filed.pdf

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[not guilty]

Finding accounts that actually give the administration's side of the story is unsurprisingly difficult.

But piecing it together, there were several causes.

1. The AAP's support for sexually mutilating confused children.
2. The AAP's failure to understand that pregnancy is restricted to women.
3. Racially discriminatory policies by the AAP.

I haven't read the complaint yet, but what are your sources, Brett?

[DDHarriman]

Genetic distance from "Heritage Americans" predicts voting patterns.

Funny thing about this graph –– America's founders said we should accept immigrants almost exclusively from within the yellow box.

They believed Northwestern Europeans (from protestant cultural backgrounds, specifically) were basically the only immigrants capable of full assimilation into America's culture, values, and founding principles...

https://x.com/sovereignbrah/status/2003606342683296069

Looking for motivations behind the Great Replacement?

There it is. It's pure, raw, political power. Democrats are as selfish and power hungry as they are vile and authoritarian.

[Krayt]

Correlation is not causation. Ironically, one group of mostly "Heritage Americans" panders to those outsiders that the other "Heritage Americans" disdain. Or their leaders do. Go figure on the voting patterns.

As for assimilation, their kids are all obese, video game playing fully American. Goooooo USA!

[DDHarriman]

>Correlation is not causation.

So?

>Ironically, one group of mostly "Heritage Americans" panders to those outsiders that the other "Heritage Americans" disdain. Or their leaders do. Go figure on the voting patterns.

I don't even know what this is referring to. Can you be more direct?

>As for assimilation, their kids are all obese, video game playing fully American. Goooooo USA!

You look around America and you see assimilation and not balkanization? We have mayors who don't speak English, we have foreign nationals policing us and judging us with their cultural values and not ours. We have fraudsters ripping us off and flowing billions back to their homelands.

That's not assimilation. That's 5th generation invasion, warfare, and looting.

[Malika la Maize]

“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.”

[DDHarriman]

So?

If you're trying to make a point, can you just make it directly instead of just hoping everyone else will understand it by magic?

danke schoen

[Malika la Maize]

Those terrible Germans, they can’t be assimilated!

[David Nieporent]

"Bigots have weird ideas about identity and make bad predictions about the ability to assimilate."

[DDHarriman]

But I'm not making a prediction. I'm looking around and seeing how it is in reality. I'm observing the world and drawing conclusions. I'm an empiricist. Why aren't you one too?

What sort of retard looks around at America and thinks there's one single, assimilated culture? Apparently the two above.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think there's one culture; indeed, I don't think there's ever been one culture.

And I've asked people to explain in concrete terms what they mean by "assimilate" with no actual substantive responses. (The only concrete item I've been told is learning English. And we see the same pattern we've seen for centuries: immigrants speak broken English; their kids are bilingual; and their kids speak essentially only English.)

[Estragon]

Goes back to what I said yesterday. Where exactly does someone like Steven Miller think this is all heading?

[DDHarriman]

Have you thought about asking him instead of asking me to mindread him for you?

[Estragon]

I am not asking you for anything my voltage guy. Your services continue to be invaluable around here.

To each and every other one of you who would be a fellow traveler to voltage in this fascist project, particularly those of you like DB, JB, Steven Miller, etc: are you sure you are white enough? The “heritage American” idea that is now starting be mainlined by people like voltage— this points the way towards where this is all heading. Same thing with that young republican text chain. Are you “northwestern European” enough for your future mandarins? The focus is seemingly safely on Somalis and other brown people for now, but is that really the permanent state of affairs?

[DDHarriman]

Not letting illegals rape and pillage you and your treasury is fascism!!!

[Estragon]

“illegals”

As I said— right now things are comfortably directed at brown people. But once those targets are exhausted, the rhetoric and apparatus will remain— and be deployed against the next group, and the next. When voltage talks about Heritage Americans (note the capitalization) just who— besides himself— do you think he has in mind? The grandson of Belarusian immigrants? Jews? Italians? Just how “northwest European” does one have to be? This is one of the reasons I find certain persons around here so mystifying— as if they have Stockholm syndrome. How do you think voltage would view a child of an American and a Filipino or Cambodian immigrant? As a “heritage American”?

[DDHarriman]

Just think of it as DEI but for Heritage Americans, the good guys.

[Estragon]

The people who call other humans “bugs” always turn out to be the good guys, in the end

[Josh R]

A Michael Kinsley gaffe!

[bernard11]

The notion of "Heritage Americans" is nonsense at best, outright bigotry and hate at worst.

Why does anyone's ancestry entitle them to some sort of special privilege or regard? No reason, except the ridiculous ideas of people like Vance. Should I think less of someone whose great-great-grandfather was a horse thief?

How many American Nobel Laureates do you think are "Heritage Americans?" How many physicians, or engineers or entrepreneurs? What about SCOTUS justices? Probably only Jackson and Thomas qualify as Heritage Americans, hardly surprising.

I think the advocates of the whole notion would be seriously embarrassed if there were an actual count.

[Josh R]

It would be a "Great Replacement" if the law discriminated against white Northwestern Europeans. But, it doesn't. The law treats would-be immigrants equally. It's the GOP (*) that wants to discriminate in favor of white Northwestern Europeans.

(*) I think it's more a racist thing than a partisan thing. We can't have those dirty people (like Sinatra and Dean Martin) replacing our wholesome white Northwestern Europeans.

[DDHarriman]

What are the actual, observed governmental actions? Regardless of any laws, what actions do/did we see states and the federal government take or policies implemented?

Did you or do you see any privileged treatment of these people that they haven't extended to Heritage Americans?

I sure do.

[Josh R]

Citations, please for your claims.

What I see is an effort by the Millers of the world to repeal the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act which leveled the playing field.

[DDHarriman]

You really have no idea what I am referring to when I say privileged treatment?
If so, I must apologize I am not going to waste time catching someone up on current events when they are clearly willfully choosing to be ignorant.

[Malika la Maize]

“You really have no idea what I am referring to when I say privileged treatment?”

If he doesn’t that likely makes two of you.

[Randal]

I sure do.

Yes, we know you see evil brown people whenever you close your eyes. That's called maggot brainwashing. You have a figurative brain worm that Trump implanted.

[DDHarriman]

I bet you have Somali Flags on your bluesky profile, lmao what a dumbass

[not guilty]

"Heritage Americans"??

DDHarriman, from what Native American tribe are you descended?

[Estragon]

Yeah, I would love to see a definition of “heritage American”

Being descended from “northwestern Europeans” seems to be part of it… tell us voltage, is that the only criteria?

[DDHarriman]

Not only is this 1776-style Patriot a Heritage American, I'm also 100% Organic and Non-GMO.

You stupid vaxxies can't say the same. Nor do you stupid vaxxies know the difference between "native" and "heritage".

[Estragon]

What’s a “Heritage American”? Does “northwestern European” have anything to do with it?

“1776-style Patriot”

So far all you’ve said is… self-identification with buzzwords? Is that all that it takes to be a “Heritage” American or did you have something more… immutable… in mind?

[not guilty]

It looks, DDHarriman, as if you have forgotten the First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Humphreys, who was convicted of the 2003 murders of two Cobb County real estate agents, was set to be executed Dec. 17. But the State Board of Pardons and Paroles postponed his clemency hearing and execution last week because of legal concerns over potential conflicts of interest for two of the board’s five members.

https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/12/planned-execution-of-convicted-cobb-murderer-on-hold-for-now/

One more problem in the tinkering of the machinery of death (h/t Harry Blackmun) led to forty-seven executions in 2025. No more are scheduled in the next few days.

There were 25 executions last year. Florida went from one execution last year to nineteen this year. Ten other states had 1-5 (Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas) executions.

So, the uptick can be explained by looking a Florida and a few more executions in other states. S.C. changed its law in the last few years, for instance, to offer the firing squad as an option to help address its problem with lethal injections.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/upcoming-executions/outcomes-of-warrants/outcomes-of-death-warrants-in-2025

The Trump Administration announced a policy to encourage executions. So far, this does not appear to have much of an effect. There was one execution directly tied to its actions.

John Fitzgerald Hanson was in federal custody serving a life sentence and the Biden Administration refused to transfer him. The Trump Administration did, and the person was executed.

You can say that Trump commuted the sentence.

[John F. Carr]

With 20 years to think about clemency they waited until the last minute.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The execution date would be set. Then, they would have to determine if he should be executed or have his sentence commuted.

So, not twenty years, but they should have had time to avoid it.

[ducksalad]

A few days ago "President Donald Trump said in an interview with WABC radio in New York that the U.S. had “knocked out” a Venezuelan facility, a move that would be a major escalation in U.S. military strikes to counter alleged drug-trafficking by the South American country.....big plant or big facility". The strike supposedly happened Wednesday of last week.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-land-strike-venezuela-facility-drug-boats-rcna251329

No announcements from our DoD, the Maduro government, or left-leaning South American countries and organizations that would normally comment.

Did it actually happen? Has his senility reached the point where he's confused on something this important?

[loki13]

....I mean, at this point the idea that Trump usually has no idea what he's talking about is always the safe bet.

Either he's just making stuff up, or he accidentally revealed we conducted a secret operation that no one was supposed to announce. Neither is a good look, but based on past history, I'd assume he's just sundowning.

[ThePublius]

"President Trump stated the U.S. "knocked out" a "big facility" in Venezuela as part of a counter-narcotics campaign. U.S. officials, who confirmed the strike on condition of anonymity, described it as a drug facility that was eliminated, but no specific details on its location, the method of the attack, or any potential casualties were publicly provided. "

[ducksalad]

Interesting, hadn't seen that. Thanks.

Assuming the officials are telling the truth, why the official silence, especially from Venezuela? Tossing out some wild ass guesses-

1. It was something remote and actually not very large, and Venezuelan authorities really didn't notice, or
2. There have been informal negotiations, and Maduro actually agreed to this one, or
3. Maduro decided that admitting there was a land attack would create domestic political pressure to respond, and he's not ready to do that.

But until something more substantial comes out I'm still keeping "didn't happen" as an option.

[loki13]

"We just knocked out — I don’t know if you read or you saw — they have a big plant, or a big facility, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard."

That was Friday. Trump appeared to believe that was public news. That means the strike would have been ... Wednesday.

Is it possible that he confused ... the attack on Nigeria (Thursday)? Maybe. Is it possible he was confusing this with a phone call he made that Wednesday to troops there were he told them that they would be going after the land? Maybe. Who knows? Magnets, how do they work?

But it's five days after the strike, and it's three days after Trump said it. As far as I can tell, no one has made any official comment, and the White House has not provided any additional response. Nothing from the DoD, nothing from any allies, nothing from Venezuela, nothing from Congress.

I have seen a report that one unnamed administration official was brave enough to say that Trump was describing a "drug facility," but nothing further. Apparently, there was a fire at a warehouse somewhere in northern Venezuela that some people are saying might have been linked.

We go back to the initial analysis- either we did covert operation that Trump probably wasn't supposed to blab about (HA!) ... or we finally escalated and actually attacked Venezuela (attacking the land is, in fact, quite different than murdering people in international waters) and no one in the administration is prepared to talk about it ... or Trump is making stuff up.

Or maybe we did a covert op, and Trump blabbed about it, and now the administration is rushing around and trying to figure out how to make it all seem like this is totally normal and planned (since it would need to be covert if they didn't have a rationale for going to war).

But all of this is precisely the problem when you have a rudderless administration led by someone who routinely lies and often doesn't know what he's talking about- but also is quick to blab about anything that he thinks will make him look good.

Heck, what is our actual policy right now with Venezuela, and why? Your guess is as good as mine. I know it's not drugs, because that would be mas stupido. I hope it's not immigration, because, um, war isn't great at stopping people from fleeing a country. So ... are we just piddling around and murdering people hoping Maduro leaves so we can take the oil? That doesn't seem like much of a strategy.

[SRG2]

Or maybe Trump misunderstood something he'd been told and just spewed out his misunderstanding, and no-one wanted to correct him. And now they have to claim it happened. Reminds me a little of Lieutenant Kijé.

[John F. Carr]

AP reports some colleges are reacting to the ban on racial discrimination by admitting more poor students. The Trump administration doesn't like this change. I gather the new policies may have disparate impact. But what's the baseline for disparate impact? If school A was recruiting at New England prep schools and started recruiting in poor neighborhoods, it's going to get fewer white students. Meanwhile school B always went to the wrong side of the tracks. A and B have the same policy now. Does A get punished for changing to match B's legal recruiting policy?

https://apnews.com/article/college-admissions-affirmative-action-scholarships-pell-0cdef1e68ccc2c6d743dcd26817e73ee

[Longtobefree]

The best way to straighten out college admission issues is to deny any federal (tax) money to any institution that admits candidates requiring "remedial" classes.
If they didn't do the work in high school, why should taxpayers subsidize their repeating classes?

[John F. Carr]

Some people go to community college to catch up then transfer to a four year college.

[Magister]

Some go to a community college because it's cheaper and credits for basic requirements will transfer to the four year college they intend to transfer to.

[Bunny495]

UF is the flagship state university in Florida and last time I checked fully 1/3 of the students were taking a remedial math or English class, Gemini AI reports nation wide it is 40-60% with higher levels at community colleges.

[David Nieporent]

But what's the baseline for disparate impact?

The Trump administration — Harmeet Dhillon — has announced that it believes disparate impact to be unconstitutional anyway, and will not enforce it in any context where it has discretion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Properly so: Disparate impact is actually an inevitable result of NOT discriminating, in the real world, where groups are not actually similarly situated on average.

[Randal]

SCOTUS was super inconsistent about this. On the one hand, they (including and especially Thomas) fully endorsed "race-neutral alternatives" such as socio-economic status as A-OK. But then they decried "proxies for race." How are those different?

Well, whatever. If disparate impact is ok for laws, it's sure as fuck ok for admissions policies.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas kvetching about race-based affirmative action deserves as much attention as Strom Thurmond decrying miscegenation or Ted Haggard proclaiming the evils of buttsex.

[Commenter_XY]

I see you have a TDS variant; Thomas Derangement Syndrome. 😉

[wvattorney13]

"AP reports some colleges are reacting to the ban on racial discrimination by admitting more poor students."

In my view, the start of the analysis would at least ferret out attempts where everyone knows that the new standard is a complete pretext to racially discriminate. If the AP knows something well enough to declare it in an article without pushback, then the evidence is rather overwhelming that these schools are concerned about race and not socioeconomic status.

[Randal]

That seems kind of pointless. The right has gotten really good at practicing disparate impact against minorities without letting on. I'm sure universities can pull from the same playbook.

But anyway, race-neutral attempts to bolster minority enrollment were lauded by the right not so long ago. Remember Texas' top 10% policy? Suddenly racist?

It really looks like white people like you are simply trying to lock in their structural advantages. It doesn't matter to any individual applicant what the motives of the university are. It only matters what the outcomes are. You're trying to find any way you can to keep the outcomes preferable to white people, even if it means flip-flopping on "race-neutral alternatives."

Disparate impact feels different when you're on the other side, huh. Kudos to Brett for being the only intellectually honest one among you.

[bernard11]

the start of the analysis would at least ferret out attempts where everyone knows that the new standard is a complete pretext to racially discriminate.

But recruiting is not admitting.

There's another problem here. If you claim that shifting recruiting is a pretext to recruit more minority students, then why isn't recruiting at expensive prep schools a pretext to recruit fewer minority students?

IOW, if the choice of where to recruit is discriminatory, then that cuts both ways. Are you now going to police university's recruiting policies? On what basis, exactly?

[John F. Carr]

Do you have a right to go onto property owned by a large corporation and protest the corporation? In California the answer is sometimes yes: shopping malls must allow political speech. A lawsuit aims to set a similar precedent in New York City. NYC allows property owners to build larger buildings if some open space around the property is opened to public use at private expense. The plaintiff was arrested for protesting Skadden, Arps, et al. on a plaza owned by Skadden, Arps, et al. A guard told him to leave and he didn't. On public property he wins. On private property the guard wins. Who wins on a quasi-public space?

Case 1:25-cv-10532 in the Southern District of New York seeks a declaration that "privately owned public spaces" as defined in NYC zoning law are public forums.

I would divide the inquiry into two parts. First, does the law intend to create a public forum? Second, who has standing to enforce the law? Is individual plaintiff a third party beneficiary? (By analogy, a duty to shovel snow off a public sidewalk does not necessarily create tort liability for failure to shovel. The duty is owed to the public in general and not to the person who slipped and fell.)

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/new-york-brief/anti-skadden-protesters-suit-spotlights-free-speech-gray-area
https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/12/19/privately-owned-public-spaces-skadden-brookfield-lawsuit/

[David Nieporent]

a duty to shovel snow off a public sidewalk does not necessarily create tort liability for failure to shovel. The duty is owed to the public in general and not to the person who slipped and fell.)

While PI — let alone slip-and-falls specifically — are not remotely my area of practice, I am not aware of any jurisdiction where failure to shovel where one has a legal duty to do so does not create tort liability to a person injured as a result.

In any case, the above situation involves an arrest — not private enforcement — and of course if it's a public forum one has standing to challenge one's arrest for speaking there.

[ThePublius]

I have a public sidewalk outside my home, and I am obligated by the city to shovel it:

"Sec. 22-15. - Snow and ice—Removal from sidewalks; required.
Every owner or occupant of a building or lot of land abutting upon a sidewalk in any street or public place in the city shall cause the snow to be removed from such sidewalk within a reasonable time after such snow has ceased to fall; except that under unusual or extraordinary circumstances a reasonable time shall be held to be as follows: If snow falls in the day time, it shall be removed from the sidewalk within four (4) hours from time it shall have ceased falling; if in the night time, it shall be removed on or before 11:00 in the forenoon next succeeding. The provisions of this section shall apply to snow falling from any building or accumulating upon such sidewalk from any other cause."

https://library.municode.com/ma/new_bedford/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH22STSIOTPUWAPUWO_ARTIINGE_S22-15SNIEMSIRE

I just naturally assumed that if someone was injured I would be liable; but I don't think that even if I had shoveled and treated the sidewalk with snow melt, as I do, it would stop someone injured from suing me. (By the way, I use pet-safe calcium chloride ice melt, as most of the traffic by my house is dog walkers headed to the park.)

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts courts ruled that sidewalk-shoveling ordinances did not create tort liability. At least they used to rule that way.

In 2010 the Supreme Judicial Court created a new duty to clear snow. Under the old law property owners were not liable for injuries resulting from natural accumulation of snow. Naturally tort lawyers were unhappy about this state of affairs. They persuaded the SJC to change the law so the jury decides. I don't know if the old rule about non-liability for sidewalks remains.

Homeowner's insurance should cover defense for claims about badly-cleared sidewalks. After the 2010 decision there was some worrying that insurers would refuse to insure corner lots due to doubled exposure to claims. As far as I know that never happened.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-snow-and-ice

[ThePublius]

Thanks. I'll just do my thing and hope for the best. I didn't shovel my driveway, I just drive over the snow from the garage as it's only 3" or so of snow, but then I realized my delivery people walk up the driveway to put packages on my side porch; so going forward I'll be shoveling a path for them. I was thinking of shoveling the whole driveway, but I have nowhere to put the snow! (Small lot.)

[santamonica811]

Are you saying that you go to work on Monday morning like we all do, around 7 or 8 am, bracing ourselves against the falling snow.. Then, around 10 am, it stops snowing. None of us will be home till about 6 pm, assuming we work till 5, and then drive or commute home. We're all *way* past your 4-hour deadline by 6 in the evening. Is the entire city population of homeowners really in violation of this rule/regulation? Enforcement seems (a) totally unrealistic, (b) entirely unfair, and (c) to be--hopefully--merely a threat to get genuine deadbeats to clean off their sidewalks in a reasonable amount of time.

[not guilty]

"In any case, the above situation involves an arrest — not private enforcement — and of course if it's a public forum one has standing to challenge one's arrest for speaking there."

The accused has a right to challenge the arrest in state court. The instant suit is in United States District Court. I haven't read the complaint, and I don't know whether state proceedings arising out of the arrest have or have not been resolved in favor of the civil plaintiff.

If not, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), will likely require federal abstention.

[Josh R]

I couldn't tell who was the comedian at yesterday's Trump-Zelensky presser after Trump said, "Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed... President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm re-watching Season 4 of the original Night Court.

It has some rather dark subplots, including a familiar face (for instance, she played Fish's wife on Barney Miller) pleasantly pretending to kill her husband, who, in actuality, committed suicide after a long, painful illness.

That show had a somewhat uncomfortable mix of goofiness and seriousness. And, ah, the bailiff's full name is ROSALIND Russell. (Roz pops up on the reboot.)

Christine also found the Epstein File. Singular. So not that one.

[ThePublius]

I liked that show. I thought Markey Post was gorgeous. I though the judge's obsession with Mel Torme was a quirky twist.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Markie Post has a big case of 1980s hair on that show.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I thought Markey Post was gorgeous."

Too bad she was a bad actress.

Ellen Foley, who played the PD the first season. said about the change: "You don’t know pain until you’ve been replaced in a role by Markie Post.

[ThePublius]

"Ellen Foley, who played the PD the first season."

Actually, season 2.

[loki13]

"Why would Republicans nominate and elect a President who has numerous judgements against him for fraud? Overvaluing properties, Trump University scam, Trump charity scam. Fraud isn't partisan."

Moderation4ever wrote this above. Every now and then, I am reminded of one of those times where I was spectacularly wrong.

Way back in the day, back when the VC spent a short period of time hosted by WaPo, I was in a conversation with Orin Kerr in the comments about the GOP field in the primaries leading up to the 2016 election. I was making some point about Ted "Zodiac Killer" Cruz, and mentioned that it might be good for Trump to win the GOP nomination- because it might help lead the GOP to course correct from crazytown, and, besides, it would be entertaining. Kerr, on the other hand, was very much against that.

Yeah, Orin Kerr was right. I definitely owe him a beer.

Look- in my defense, I knew who Trump was, and thought that there was no way people could actually vote for him. Because I didn't watch reality shows (never saw the Apprentice) ... I knew him as the blowhard buffoon that was a joke. The serial failure. This was the guy who was so desperate to be in the papers that he used to call the tabloids using a fake name (like he wouldn't be recognized) in order to brag about extramarital affairs. The serial liar that would rip off his own charity. He was known for so many business failures that you couldn't count them all, and he basically survived by shady financial maneuvers and licensing. Not to mention he was corrupt AF- not just the whole "real estate developer" thing, but the mob thing (go on, look it up).

The idea that this guy ... THIS GUY ... would be able to run and win the Presidency? He didn't have skeletons in his closet. His closet was made out of skeletons! Heck, he didn't even have any core principles. What, you thought the guy who hired illegal construction workers "off the books" and had properties in South Florida that needed ... cleaning and cooking ... was standing up for the American worker? It was insane! Or that the Christian right would deify someone who ... let's just say has a well-documented past of grabbin' whomever he can?

And yet, here we are.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Christian right supported Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, I had a higher opinion of the electorate, too.

I thought there would be at least just enough sensible Republicans and independents. Yes, even with Hillary Clinton (secretary of state & senator) running.

Orin Kerr, who advised the Senate Republicans for one or more SCOTUS nominations during the Obama years, publicly voted for Clinton. No third-party Libertarian vote for him. Kudos for that.

It is understandable, especially with a poor field (Marco Rubio might have been the most realistic option), how he won a plurality of the vote in the primary. At least a majority of Republican primary voters, at least early on before he gathered enough delegates to obtain a lock, repeatedly voted against him.

The Republicans' deciding he was the one to choose in 2024 was more depressing, especially given that they went in clear-eyed about what he did. But they went with a winning horse, sure enough. If that is all you care about, that will settle it, I guess.

[Bob from Ohio]

Run a better candidate against Vance.

Alas for you, its going to be Harris again.

[hobie]

You forced us to vote for Trump!

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought Republicans were remarkably stupid to nominate Trump again. It was like picking a piece of ground the enemy had already spent years mining, and had their artillery dialed in to the centimeter for, and declaring, "We're not going to let those so and sos tell us where we set up camp!"

And, frankly, if Democrats hadn't been so stubborn about pretending Biden was still fit to be President, and had held primaries in 2024 to select an actually competent candidate, I still think Trump would have lost.

I wanted DeSantis to be the nominee, and I still think he might have been if Democrats had just dropped the lawfare after Trump lost in 2020, instead of publicly setting out to destroy them.

[John F. Carr]

Trump inspired voters. Clinton controlled the party apparatus. Biden was a familiar name who appeared normal in comparison to the alternatives. What is Harris' path to the nomination?

[not guilty]

I can think of only one sitting vice-president who lost the general election and was later nominated for president again.

[David Nieporent]

[]

[not guilty]

Nixon. He nearly wrecked his party in the process, and made a lifelong Democrat of me.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I knew who you meant; I was just misreading what you were saying and coming up with another, but I realized it was wrong so I just deleted the whole thing.

[Bunny495]

I have been paying attention to politics for a long time and can't remember any president I considered qualified except maybe Ike. While sex scandals may not rise to the level of more serious issues JFK took a backseat to no one, including Clinton (is Paula Jones really a top tier babe you would hit on, and Monica is a little overweight, but I do give a pass to Gennifer even if she was a wet dream Hillary), and whatever one thinks about Trump he always got the hottest babes. As an aside in much of the world as long as a pol never gets caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy they get a pass.

What bothers me most is how pols and former presidents seem to have the Midas touch. I can still remember when Bush the first was bashed for taking $US400,000 for a speech. Today that would be considered chump change. Carter is the only prez who did not exploit the office to become a multi-millionaire. While Carter did have a nepotism problem Billy Beer was a small-time scam compared to what Biden's son Hunter did. Not trying to say Trump is blameless in this but at least his kids were in business well before he was elected and were never kicked out of the military for hard drugs.

Bottom line is lets not pretend Trump is the Lone Ranger in terms of flawed presidents or candidates. I do claim he has a superpower of making liberal's heads explode which counts for something.

[loki13]

"Bottom line is lets not pretend Trump is the Lone Ranger in terms of flawed presidents or candidates. I do claim he has a superpower of making liberal's heads explode which counts for something."

Really? Really? That's ... that's what you got out of this? I am not arguing that you have to be a saint to be President. Far from it. But ... you honestly think that Trump is just par for the course when it comes to Presidents since Kennedy?

And you realize that there is a massive difference between making money after you leave office giving speeches (which you might find distasteful) and ... cashing in on the office WHILE YOU ARE PRESIDENT. It's ... not a small difference.

By the way- it's not an issue of "making liberal's heads explode." Those of us who aren't braindead remember that Trump isn't a Republican. He was a Democrat for years, and was always talking about running on that ticket (because he loves to be talked about). He doesn't actually care about any of your issues- not immigration, not abortion, not gay rights, not anything. He cares about himself. What is shocking to those of us who know about Trump is how bizarrely people like you drank the Kool-Aid; personally, I wouldn't care, except that your gullibility does, in fact, due long-term damage to the rest of us. So, congratulations?

[Brett Bellmore]

"He doesn't actually care about any of your issues- not immigration, not abortion, not gay rights, not anything. "

I've said as much myself, you know.

And the absurd thing is this unprincipled guy, in practice, turns out to be better at fulfilling his campaign promises than Republican Presidents who cared. Because they were LYING about what they cared about, and what they actually cared about got in the way of fulfilling those campaign promises they'd never meant.

While Trump, who didn't give a damn about anything but winning the office and being loved by his voters, was free to, not just promise what they wanted, but to DO what they wanted, because he had no principled objection to doing so.

So, by electing this unprincipled man, we got a Court that overturned Roe, we got the border sealed, we got illegal aliens deported. We got what we wanted because he had no principles standing in the way of keeping his promises.

Wild, isn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

The ends justify the means, eh, Brett?

The pretzel logic you use to justify Trump just end up with you looking terrible.

[David Nieporent]

If any one of the roughly 20 people who ran for the GOP nomination in 2016 had been elected, you'd have gotten the Court that overturned Roe. It had essentially nothing to do with Trump — Mitch McConnell deserves all the credit/blame — and indeed we've seen in 2025 that Trump regrets having listened to Leonard Leo about judges.

This delusion that Trump "fulfilled campaign promises" continues to be based on nothing.

[wvattorney13]

I am in Dallas and visited the GWB Presidential Library today. I was struck by this exact fact. He and then crop of Republicans for the last 60 to 70 years, while probably leaning towards the social conservative ideals, felt stronger on the economic Republican ideals and made a calculated decisions not to go too hard in giving the social conservatives what they wanted. So they were played with for decades.

When Trump came along, they saw in him exactly what you stated. While Trump doesn't care about anything but himself, he was ready to make that deal in order to get elected. When faced with the choice, even the evangelicals saw that the choice was easy. Would you rather elect GW Bush who likely sides with you but won't go against his donor class to give you what you want, or do you want Trump who doesn't care about you at all, nor care about his donor class at all, so he will keep his promises to you in sort of a business deal?

The second. And that's why he won twice. And that's what the libs keep missing. I don't see you saying that it is right or positive, only that it works.

[John F. Carr]

You're using "qualified" differently than I would use it. Most of the presidents in my lifetime have enough experience to rank as qualified. Not always good presidents. Qualified for the job. Being governor is good experience. George H. W. Bush had a lot of government experience despite not having a top executive position.

To get away from the emotional reaction people have in reaction to Trump, businessman Ross Perot struck me as a qualified candidate. I disagreed with him on free trade. He knew how to run a business and he had more foreign contacts than the average governor.

[wvattorney13]

Wasn't one of the big criticisms of Perot that you cannot run the U.S. Government as if you are the CEO? There are checks and balances; you can't run in there and start ordering the other branches of government around to "get things done."

Trump has failed in exactly the same manner. He can run the executive branch with precision, IMHO, but he cannot get Congress and the courts on board.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be a long 36 months for you. Better pace yourself. And check your blood pressure regularly. 😉

[John F. Carr]

Last week the Algerian legislature passed a law listing the ways that France mistreated its colony and demanding reparations and an apology. This is retaliation for France accepting Morocco's plan for Western Sahara. The grievances are old. The will to turn them into law is new.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/24/algeria-declares-frances-colonial-rule-a-crime-in-new-law
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/12/24/l-algerie-reclame-excuses-et-reparations-a-la-france-pour-son-passe-colonial_6659330_3210.html

[John F. Carr]

Dave Barry's year in review is on Substack this year: https://davebarry.substack.com/p/the-year-in-review.

[ThePublius]

From the obscure web forums files:

The Hand Lettering Forum

I found this searching for ideas on a DIY Maulstick (the stick used as a hand rest when painting).

Interesting video in this post:

Vienna's Last Sign Painter

[Bunny495]

RANT ALERT!!!!!

Yesterday I posted a link to an AI generated film and hobie was the only one who seemed to view it and then made a comment along the lines of God help Hollywood.

Check it out you checkitouters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx8rMzlG29Q&t=256s

[hobie]

He ain't lying, hayseeds. That little film is a game-changer!

[loki13]

The issue isn't Hollywood. It's the rest of us.

We've now got a good bit of time and experience seeing how easy it is to be divided and angry. AI generation of clips to anger the blood and stoke fear and hate will become trivially easy, and it will be increasingly hard to tell the difference between them and real ones- more importantly, they will spread quickly and do damage long before the truth emerges. Heck, look at how often (and how oft-repeated) lies are currently.

We already see it being used in other countries to foment violence against ethnic groups. While I hope I'm wrong, it seems most people would rather get false information that tells them who to hate than true information that tells them what is.

[hobie]

Luckily we two have been trained on reality our whole lives. Even a perfect image, if it defies logic or current affairs, I do a secondary lookup on more trusted sites. Unfortunately, an added layer of necessary verification in these times.

[loki13]

...it's not us I'm worried about.

But when we live in a world where we have the President believe a badly photoshopped image (because he wants to) to the extent of angrily defending it in an interview, and you also have his supporters continue to believe in that same image ...

Actual AI-generated voice and images seem primed to do a lot of damage. Just as importantly, they also make it easy for people who want ... to discount actual images and recordings of the truth that they don't want to see or hear by dismissing it as AI.

Remember when hearing people say "Fake news" was kind of funny? Less so, now.

[Michael P]

Yesterday I watched Tenet for the first time, guided by some online reviews that described it as a very complex and layered film with lots of unresolved ambiguity. I didn't find it to be such. It was technically interesting film -- the time-reversal bits and turnstiles' "observation windows" were good in terms of theatrical effect -- but most of the subplots were pretty well-telegraphed (particularly the red cord on a backpack and who recruited Neil) and it was effective at tidying up the major loose ends. And the repeated explicit references to the main character as a protagonist are probably second in cheesiness only to Neal Stephenson naming the lead of Snow Crash "Hiro Protagonist".

Hollywood needed saving from itself before it needed saving from AI.

[SRG2]

As I knew the Latin word square, I was able to astonished the friends I was watching it with by predicting that the word "Arepo" would appear.

[Bunny495]

"Hollywood needed saving from itself before it needed saving from AI."

No argument that Hollywood has lots of problems and many of them are self-created. Another thread in todays instance talked about AI replacing programmers, EV has been running a series about AI's problems with legal work, and most peeps agree we will be seeing more AI not less. While everyone is a movie critic it use to be AI critics all started with the same issues like drifting plot, plot holes, images drifting. Your criticisms are what I would term legit issues for you, not that there were technical issues making the move unwatchable. There were arms sticking out of heads or noses on feet. The hero's father did not die in the first act and reappear in the third act.

Since I retired I have been involved in indie film making and watching things change. Georgia in general and Atlanta in particular has been offering big tax benefits and stealing business from Hollywood as California has been making it harder to make movies in Hollywood.

My point is Kira was a very enjoyable film for me to watch. Did it rehash issues like cloning, big business as the bad guy, and ludites; sure. Point is it was made entirely on a computer using AI in a couple of months for around$US500. A while back I spent just under $US20K for a camera, computer, and enough equipment to do 90%+ of what the Hollywood studios do (absent a great scrip, something Hollywood does not always have). I recently spent half of that for a custom built AI computer that can accomplish everything done in Kira. I have little doubt some smart teenager with more skill at writing prompts will have access to hardware that will soon be making hit movies. As an aside already there are monetized Youtube channels literally raking in millions a year, and some of them are basically only producing cartoons for children. Bandar Apna Dost has amassed over 2.4 billion views. It features surreal, AI-generated animations of monkeys and characters resembling the Incredible Hulk fighting demons.

Earnings: Estimates suggest this single channel generates up to $4 million annually.

The Model: These creators use AI to "churn and burn" content. Instead of one high-quality video, they use AI tools to produce dozens of videos daily with minimal human oversight. Because India has a massive, digitally connected audience, even "absurd" content can go viral globally.

[John F. Carr]

I waded through my spam folder. Two non-spam messages and 58 urgent messages from a right wing email service.

A fundraising email from a Super PAC asks "Should every Radical Leftist who attacks ICE be thrown in a COLD, DARK CELL?" Other desperate pleas today include

"TANK the socialist revolution"
"stop the Radical Left and RINO Establishment from HIJACKING Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vacant seat"
"upgrade your MAGA status today" (over a dozen emails offer a final chance to click to prove I am a loyal Republican, but alas they are all lies and I will get another batch tomorrow)
"your Conservative Wishlist will be NOTHING more than a pipe dream"
"What’s happening in South Texas is DIRE" (not sure which race this refers to)
"IMPEACH JUDGE MICHAEL FARBIARZ!" (he ordered Mahmoud Khalil released)

Although all these messages are sent by a single organization, the unsubscribe button only seems to work for a single campaign or PAC.

In contrast, I haven't heard from Democrats recently. They used to send reasonably specific calls to action related to a state I don't live in.

[Bob from Ohio]

"An hour after midnight Jan. 1, as a small brush fire blazed across Topanga State Park, a California State Parks employee texted the Los Angeles Fire Department’s heavy equipment supervisor to find out if they were sending in bulldozers.

“Heck no that area is full of endangered plants,” Capt. Richard Diede replied at 9:52 a.m, five hours after LAFD declared the fire contained.

“I would be a real idiot to ever put a dozer in that area,” he wrote. “I’m so trained.”"

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-12-27/new-view-of-two-critical-days-that-set-stage-for-palisades-fire

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge in Los Angeles took the unusual step of dismissing an indictment with prejudice for government misconduct. The defendant, anti-ICE gadfly Carlitos Ricardo Parias, was in immigration detention. The facility wouldn't let him talk to his lawyer. The prosecution also failed to meet discovery deadlines. Body camera footage was critical for determining whether defendant did in fact assault a federal officer. The prosecution waited six weeks to disclose it.

In my opinion, dismissal without prejudice would be a more appropriate remedy but the Speedy Trial Act clock should not reset.

https://apnews.com/article/richard-la-tiktok-shot-immigration-arrest-fd91309845e7075c032d2beed5fe1d9d
US v. Parias, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71903684/united-states-v-parias/

[David Nieporent]

That is one of the more outrageous fact patterns I have read. ICE should be burned to the ground and the ground salted to prevent it from ever coming back. But DOJ was just as bad, and in any case trying to draw a distinction between them is fallacious. One can't rely on the unitary executive theory only when convenient. One executive means one executive, which means that the responsibility of any failure of his employees to coordinate lies with POTUS.

[John 4]

Another piss-poor performance by MAGA on the thread today. Take the night off, get a good night’s sleep, and try to really bring it tomorrow, ladies.