Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

I was rather shocked when I walked into my local Costco today and saw a 65" 4k UHD QLED TV on sale for 399$.

I don't get it, I thought Trump's tariffs ended that kind of deal forever.

https://www.costco.com/p/-/tcl-65-class-q77k-series-4k-uhd-qled-smart-tv-allstate-3-year-protection-plan-bundle-included-for-5-years-of-total-coverage/4000364007?langId=-1

I didn't buy one of course, I have a perfectly good Samsung 65" that I bought 3 years ago for around $600.

But I still remember quite a few of my previous TV purchases for context.
(please no psychoanalysis about why I would keep this kind of memory when I can't remember the last name of the first girl I had sex with).

The first TV I ever bought was a 19 inch color TV for 270$, specifically watch the Raiders, my favorite team since I was born in Oakland, beat the Eagles. (A year later I divorced the Raiders when they moved to LA. Fuck Al Davis, I didn't care a whit when they moved back. That's like when your stripper girlfriend moves back in after she leaves you for a pimp bf, and then can't find her enough tricks (not a personal experience, but I was born in Oakland so I understand the whole emotional thing)).

About 10-12 years later after that TV crapped out I bought a 27" color TV for amazingly 270$ same price as the first one.

Next TV, that I remember, was about another 10-12 after that after the HD age started, it was when the first EDTV flat screens were selling at about 3000$, I instead bought a rear projection "puppet theatre" 48" HD for about 1700$. My calculus at the time was fully HD TVs prices were dropping do fast that in 2 years I could buy a full 1080p flat.screen tv for less than my rear projection screen TV would cost, which was on paper better than the 720p, and the upgrade to 1080p would cost.

And I turned out to be right.

But I guess I should have just waited for the $399, 65" 4k TV.

That's a 45 year long affordability crises.

[AmosArch]

Remember the rules: If 'Line goes up' during a Democrat President. The economy is doing great and you rubes just don't understand. If 'Line goes up' during a Republican President, its all lies, and even if it were true its stuff that has no relevance to real people just the ultrabillionaires.

If one sector grows so fast it seemingly carries the entire rest of the economy on its back during a Democrat Presidency then Bill Clinton and Al Gore are visionaries being the vanguard of enabling and advancing technology and science through their championing of the Internet. If the same thing happens during a Republican Presidency than Drumpf is selling out the country for the AI bubble because it gives the false mirage of making the rest of the economy look good.

[Kazinski]

No. Just stop.

I am not trying to compare any of the prices back then or the relative level price/technology to today.

That would be absurd.

Even though a $270 19" tv in 1980 (1070$ today) would buy you a 55" HD TV today for 270 in 2025 dollars, it doesn't consider the reality of a 7$ latte that didn't exist in 1980. That 270$ in 2025 dollars might buy you a much better TV, and leave you money left over, but not enough to buy yourself a 7$ latte for more than barely half a year today.

And that doesn't even consider Uber Eats.

How dare you.

[bloocow2]

So, as someone who is objective and non biased in these matters, how do you think your economy is doing? Do your best to answer without a tu quoque.

[Commenter_XY]

GDP growth >4%
Unemployment < 5%
Int Bond yields ~2% real
Real wage growth >2%

You tell us. Is the economy good?

Certainly better than Australia.

[Malika la Maize]

According to some quick googling Australia’s wage growth is steady around 3.4% annually (as of late 2025), GDP growth 2.1, unemployment around 4.5.

[bloocow2]

It could be better! And could be relevant in a thread that was actually about the Australian economy.

[Michael P]

Yes, but the number you cite for wage growth is in nominal dollars rather than inflation adjusted ("real").

Compare the last chart at https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/08/australian-real-wages-remain-deep-underwater/ to, say, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

[Frank Drackman]

Remember going to buy a TV with my Parents in 1969, Mom said it would be "Color", I was so excited!!!
It was "Color", 2 Colors, Black and White
Didn't get our first Color Set, a Zenith until 1972, it was one of my Birthday Presents in 1983 right before starting Med School, lasted until 1988, replace it with a 25inch Walmart Brand (with a Remote! boy I was living)
First really expensive TV was a 40 inch Mitsubishi in 1998 for $2,000 I think it's still the largest production Tube TV ever made, had to be 400lbs, free delivery to our Rockville MD townhouse was included.
Remember playing $2,500 for a 59" Panasonic Plasma in 2008, I think that was the time of "Peak TV" and it wasn't "Smart", just had a fantastic picture (still does) got a 65" Panasonic a few years later cheaper, the last of the Plasmas (still great picture)
The Plasma's are for my Man Cave, TV's only got a Finite Lifespan, no use wasting it on Mrs. Drackman's drivel.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

That’s an odd product choice:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for televisions are 99.38% lower in 2025 versus 1950 (a $993.81 difference in value).

Between 1950 and 2025: Televisions experienced an average inflation rate of -6.56% per year. This rate of change indicates significant deflation. In other words, televisions costing $1,000 in the year 1950 would cost $6.19 in 2025 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.51% during this same period, inflation for televisions was significantly lower.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Televisions/price-inflation

Also, weren’t the tariffs on electronics paused?

[David Nieporent]

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for televisions are 99.38% lower in 2025 versus 1950 (a $993.81 difference in value).

That drastically underestimates deflation in televisions, because not only are they cheaper in absolute terms, but you could not buy a modern TV at any price in 1950. Not even if you had Elon Musk equivalent wealth. The price of a 65" flatscreen QLED ultra high definition tv was effectively infinite in 1950. (And of course even if you sent such a device back to 1950 in a time machine, it would do the recipient no good since there wasn't any HDTV signal to display.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You could probably have built a one off display of the same visible size and resolution at the time, but the working bits would occupy an entire room behind it, and, as you say, it would be pointless anyway because there'd be nothing to display on it.

I'm absolutely amazed at the picture quality of the displays I walk by at Costco, but it's extreme overkill for most media.

[ducksalad]

You could send it back with one of those HDTV-to-NTSC converters that were briefly marketed when the FCC shut down the last analog broadcasts.

[Magister]

You'd need the reverse conversion; I don't recall any converter from NTSC to HDTV. But, TVs that were made for HDTV before the general conversion still could handle NTSC; I don't know if that's been dropped from current TVs.

[ducksalad]

Man, that was an embarassing self-own by me. An electrical engineer who does telecom and once built some NTSC hardware.

My PE license is up for renewal tomorrow at midnight. Maybe I should just check the "retired, inactive" box.

I apologize for calling Trump senile. Won't stop saying it, because it's true, but it'll be with apologies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

you sent such a device back to 1950 in a time machine

Best to wait five years. Doc Brown would figure it out eventually.

[Krayt]

My working class grandma and siblings inherited a house in mid 1950s. After splitting it 4 ways, she bought a car and a little B&W TV, my dad's house was the first on the block to get a TV. It cost $700 in 1950s dollars. Her whole house cost $2900 early 40s.

[ducksalad]

The TCL television is very likely made in Mexico. Not sure where a TV falls on the USMCA agreement but it looks like the tariffs could be as low as 0%.

[Riva]

I wouldn’t take a Chinese TLC tv if they were giving them away.

[Krayt]

Support laws that all data sent back home must be in well-defined formats so people can keep a better eye on it.

[Riva]

Far easier, safer and moral simply to avoid Chinese company products, particularly internet connected devices.

[Brett Bellmore]

I just make a point of using my TV as a dumb terminal for the devices I actually have connected to the internet.

[SimonP]

As an argument, this is a little like rebutting the fact of global warming by pointing to a bad winter in some particular location.

During the Biden era, historically high inflation rates were described by the cognoscenti as "transitory," but they proved stickier than initially expected. The "liberation day" tariff scheme was predicted to cause significant market disruption and inflation, and the effect has proven slower to develop and more moderate than predicted.

What are the reasons for this? The answer points to several considerations. In the case of the "tariff inflation that wasn't," there are a lot of possible factors feeding into it. There's the much-cited example of importers stocking up before announced tariffs went into effect, of course. But there have also been a series of exemptions and carve-outs - USMCA products, one-off waivers for specific items, etc. "Trade deals" have given Trump political cover to walk back high rates to lower levels. These both have helped to mitigate the initially-shocking sticker price that Trump first announced back in April. Ironically, to the extent that the Biden-era inflation was driven by retailers hiking prices just because they can get away with it, those retailers may now have more room to "eat the cost" of tariffs and negotiate splitting the costs with non-US exporters.

In any event, the "smart money" that was wrong about transitory inflation and wrong about the catastrophic effects of Trump's tariff regime now believes that the tariff hit is largely behind us. I guess we'll see! Meanwhile, the American renaissance in manufacturing is...

[Malika la Maize]

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal is dismissing a conspiracy theory about 2020 election integrity in Georgia that has gained more traction among Republicans in recent days.

“The nation’s MAGA minds are still looking back at 2020 and stretching to justify President Trump’s delusion of a stolen election,” the Journal wrote in an editorial published Sunday. “The latest involves the embarrassing news that Fulton County, Ga., failed to have its poll workers sign many of the tabulator tapes for early voting.”

The newspaper conceded that “unsigned tabulator tapes are a problem,” calling the mistake in Georgia “widespread during early voting in Fulton County” enough to indicate the municipality’s election office “deserved an overhaul.”

“Yet an error by poll workers isn’t a reason to throw out tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by Georgians who did nothing wrong,” the newspaper continued, noting the issue is “getting more attention than it deserves because Mr. [Brad] Raffensperger is running for Governor, and his GOP primary opponents are using the Fulton County mistake against him…”

“Elections are supposed to run by the book, and Fulton County’s blunder is bad for public confidence,” the Journal wrote. “Yet so are Mr. Trump’s constantly shifting claims that the 2020 election was stolen, with every irregularity claimed as supposedly proving history’s biggest fraud.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5665452-wall-street-journal-trump-2020-election-fraud-georgia/?tbref=hp

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, the significance here is that it took four freaking years to find out about it. So, why are you so damned confident there weren't other problems in Fulton county we still haven't found out about?

We'd likely have known about this back in 2020 if Raffensperger hadn't been so determined to keep Trump's people from looking at the Fulton county records. So he DOES deserve to be raked over the coals for this.

[Commenter_XY]

What does the law call for?
Does the law require disqualification of the uncertified votes?

If the votes cannot be certified, then I don't see how they can be included in the final tally. The written law is what matters here, to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm willing to accept that an actual recount of the ballots themselves would fix this. If it was conducted according to the rules.

As I say, the real problem is that we didn't learn about this for 4 years, which means that we have absolutely no basis for being confident there weren't OTHER equally gross problems in Fulton county that just haven't emerged yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, let me be clear: This doesn't mean Trump really won in 2020. At most it would just mean we didn't know who really won in Georgia that year. NOT that Trump had really won there.

Our Presidential elections have practically no provision for dealing with fraud and procedural violations that are discovered late in the process. For local offices they will occasionally void the outcome of an election and rerun it, but that's not possible for higher offices.

That's why every "i" needs to be dotted, every "t" crossed, every procedural rule followed, without ad hoc actions. Because there's no way to repair things after the fact.

Covid was used as an excuse to engage in utterly MASSIVE ad hoc changes to election procedures, often in areas the state legislature had considered and rejected. It was absolutely inevitable that this would lead to the losers believing they'd been cheated. That's just the way people think: As I like to say, you can't refuse to cut the cards, and expect the loser of that hand to believe you didn't stack the deck; Human minds don't work that way.

"No harm, no foul" has no place in election administration.

[SRG2]

And let's be clear - the citizens casting their votes did nothing wrong, and their implicit constitutional right to have their votes counted takes precedence over any clerical deficiencies. This is so obvious that any disagreement is necessarily in bad faith.

[Michael P]

It's just too bad that the illegal procedures made it impossible to reproduce the counts, huh.

This is why the only reasonable assumption is that Democrats want fraudulent elections: they insist on accepting procedures that facilitate fraud and make it practically impossible to detect afterwards.

[Josh R]

Not signing the daily tabulations did not make it impossible to conduct the hand recount.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it didn't. But taking 4 years to find out they didn't sign them leaves us with very little reason to think we'd know if they had violated procedure on the recount, too.

[Josh R]

You are assuming malfeasance rather than incompetence. I am all in favor of a full discovery of the entire process.

[SRG2]

I.e., because we have no evidence that aliens did not interfere in the election, it was aliens.

[SRG2]

As it was a GOP-overseen election and a GOP official who has consistently stated there was no fraud, your claim that it's the Democrats rings hollow.

[jb]

That's why every "i" needs to be dotted, every "t" crossed, every procedural rule followed, without ad hoc actions. Because there's no way to repair things after the fact.

But there's humans involved in the system, so that's certainly not what actually happens. This has two implications:

(1) You need to design a voting system that has failsafes to protect against mistakes (as well as attempted fraud). In this case, there's two obvious failsafes: vote totals are checked against ballot totals as part of the reconciliation report, and the ability to do a manual recount of the ballots without any reliance of computer counts. In the 2020 election, both of these failsafes were exercised, so we can be quite confident that the counts were zeroed despite the fact that the tapes weren't signed.

(2) If any significantly sized jurisdiction were put under the scrutiny that Fulton County has been under for the past four years, you would almost certainly find minor clerical errors of this form. But no one is bothering to figure out what went on in, say, Dallas County, TX or Cleveland County, OK because they've not been part of some 5 year long conspiracy theory that every MAGA is obliged to believe in because Trump got butthurt when he lost an election.

In fact, it's acknowledged that poll workers in Montana made a much worse version of this mistake, and didn't actually zero out the results on the memory card, which resulted in the wrong candidate initially being declared the winner. But what did they do in Montana? Did anyone say that this was evidence of massive fraud and that people should be in jail? Did they question the overall integrity of the electoral system in Montana? Did they throw out everyone's votes? No, they just counted the votes again, figured out who really won, and everyone moved on with their lives. Just like would happen in any election where a cult leader wasn't the loser.

[ducksalad]

Commenter_XY:

So in a future election if a poll worker - intentionally or accidentally - does not sign the results for YOUR county, and it is not discovered until after the deadline, you personally and publicly commit to insisting that your own vote, and that of your family and be tossed out. Because that's the law and you're all about the law.

If it turns that your county voted for the Republican congressman, and the remaining county voted for the Democrat, you will demand, as a matter of highest principle, that the Democrat be put in office, even if everywhere acknowledges - even the sneering, smirking, triumphant poll worker - that the Democrat received fewer votes.

You would content yourself with the poll worker, theoretically, being disciplined if they ever return from the Caribbean resort where he's enjoying his newfound wealth, while the election results are overturned. Because we must uphold the core value that deadlines and signatures are what is most important, not votes.

This is what you believe?

[Commenter_XY]

What does the law call for, is what I said.

[bernard11]

Weasel words, XY.

Ducksalad asked a yes/no question. Will you answer it?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

In every election there are minor mistakes and omissions that technically violate the law, but don't really affect anything. Forgetting to sign result printouts after feeding early votes through the machine is a VERY minor mistake. You still have all the tapes and all the early ballots, so how can any cheating have been done?

What's more, feeding in the early ballots would have been done at the county board of elections probably just after the election. The Democratic and Republican board members would have been present. Not really sure what all the fuss is about.

[Josh R]

Does the law require disqualification of the uncertified votes?

Votes are not certified. Vote totals are. In this case, a hand recount happened whose totals were certified in accordance with Georgia law notwithstanding the lack of signatures on the daily tabulations.

[jb]

Look for yourself. As far as I can tell there's no specific provision for "what happens if there's not signed zero tapes" just as there's not a specific provision for violating any of the requirements.

But, there are some more general rules. For example, Rule 183-1-12-.12(e) has a requirement for a reconciliation report to make sure the vote totals actually match up. If they do not, then there needs to be an explanation as to why.

And then 183-1-12-.12(f)(5) says:

If any error is discovered that cannot be properly corrected, the Board shall determine a method to compute the votes justly as required in GA Code § 21-2-493(i). If fraud is discovered, the Board shall determine a method to compute the votes justly and report the facts to the district attorney for action as required in GA Code § 21-2-493(i).

So basically, if there's a problem, figure out a fair way to count the votes. Even if fraud is discovered, the default is not to throw away the ballots, but to determine a just way to count the ballots and to report the fraud to the district attorney.

As far as I can tell, there's no provision whatsoever that says "if there's a mistake you should just throw away all of those votes" under any circumstances, and to the extent that there are rules around what to do if there's a problem they are all of the form "count the votes correctly and explain why there was a problem."

[David Nieporent]

Does the law require disqualification of the uncertified votes?

No. If for no other reason than there were no uncertified votes. Votes do not get certified.

But there is another reason, which is that it would be lunatic to have a rule that if a poll worker makes a paperwork error, hundreds of thousands of voters get disenfranchised. (A malicious poll worker could work insane amounts of mischief if that were the rule!)

[Life of Brian]

(A malicious poll worker could work insane amounts of mischief if that were the rule!)

If we actually have a system where a single malicious poll worker can take any action of consequence without that action being witnessed and/or cross-checked by other poll workers, the system is untrustworthy and thus unfit for its purpose. I see that as the broader point here.

[ducksalad]

For five years, when it wasn't known that there were missing signatures, the election deniers said the Georgia results were untrustworthy, and the election believers said they were trustworthy.

Now we find there are missing signatures, and nobody's belief has changed.

Conclusion: the signatures are utterly irrelevant as to whether people trust the election results.

[Life of Brian]

Or, as the Hill might put it: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

[jb]

But of course this case doesn't demonstrate that point at all since all it shows is a poll worker can make a minor clerical error that has no bearing on the outcome. It is only by adopting the MAGA view that this minor error somehow becomes fatal to hundreds of thousands of votes that the system suddenly conveys onto the single poll worker the power that you're worried about.

[Life of Brian]

But of course this case doesn't demonstrate that point at all since all it shows is a poll worker can make a minor clerical error that has no bearing on the outcome.

Declaring the issue to be minor doesn't make my broader point go away: that this missing verification for a critical step in the tabulation process either (a) went unnoticed because nobody else was checking their work, or (b) did not go unnoticed and everyone else in the verification loop looked the other way for reasons not yet known.

If (a), then we know the system is structurally broken. If (b), then even if the system is structurally adequate we know in this circumstance people colluded to defeat it.

Either way, the haughty "most secure election in history" mantra has lost whatever credibility it was ever supposed to have.

[Sarcastr0]

'Just the tip' Brett doesn't want anyone wo think he's a 2020 truther or anything, but he also wants to be a 2020 truther.

So he jumps up everything he doesn't like into a big deal.

There's a state court decision that he doesn't like! This calls things into question (according to BrettLaw)

There's a county with an immaterial irregularity - but the story came out late which calls things into question (according to Brett's personal standards)

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0 simply can't accept that people can exist outside of his mental bins. Once you exhibit anything that causes him to assign you to a particular bin, he becomes invincibly convinced that you're a stereotypical inhabitant of that bin, and any signs that you're not are just some sort of pretext.

One of the consequences of this is that, once he has you binned, it's virtually impossible to hold a real conversation with him, because he's not responding anymore to what you write, just to what his mental model of you would have written.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. You're the one who sees bad faith whenever people disagree with you.
I'm hardly the only one here who has noticed this about you.

Most of the issues on this blog are not differences of ideology, they're delusions about facts and/or law.

That's how DMN and I, quite far apart ideologically, find ourselves on the same side so often.

[Bob from Ohio]

"find ourselves on the same side so often."

You both have TDS brain disease.

[ThePublius]

You throw around the terms "truther" and "denialist" liberally to attempt to discredit those with whom you disagree. This is fallacious.

There really was an irregularity in Georgia, involving over 300K votes. This is a fact. The WSJ says this is not a reason to throw out the votes of voters who did nothing wrong. This is another fallacy, an appeal to pity. Yes, in a just world, those votes would be thrown out. And, it shows Trump's call to Raffensperger was right and just, and that Raffensperger did nothing about it. And tragically, Trump was impeached for that call. Where is the justice?

What of the aftermath? Are those poll workers who broke the law, ignored the rules, still poll workers? What remediation is being taken? I would bet exactly none.. Because, just as in Minnesota, the Dems want to be able to do whatever the heck they want in elections, with no oversight, no repercussions. This is why so many don't trust the government, don't trust that elections are fair. We have become a third world country in this regard.

[Sarcastr0]

The 2020 election wasn't stolen from Trump.

The rest is pettifogging.

[Malika la Maize]

“Yes, in a just world, those votes would be thrown out.”

In a world that doesn’t care about democracy. The voter shouldn’t pay because a clerk didn’t dot every i on their end.

[ducksalad]

ThePub, please see my response to Commenter_XY. Are you willing to make the commitment?

[ThePublius]

What commitment? Your hypothetical is a straw horse. This wasn't a single, isolated event or mistake, it was 148 missing tabulator tapes and 130 voting machine tapes not signed. This is not a single 'oopsie' on the part of a demented senior citizen poll worker, this smells of a coordinated, concerted approach on behalf of the poll workers. They ALL ignored the rules, they ALL neglected to follow procedure. It stinks to high heaven. Oh, and for those who say 'well, we did a recount and the numbers came out correctly' I say that if you count the same set of tainted ballots twice, or course you will ge thte same result. The fraudulent votes, if there were any, are still in there, and there's no way to separate them, identify them, remove them. So, the whole thing - the whole 315k ballots- are tainted. Throw them all out. For those who voted - sorry, too bad.

[ducksalad]

Could you explain to me, in some simple in direct way, how NOT signing something would help further an election fraud plot?

Seriously, what is your theory here?

Is the claim that by not signing, they could avoid criminal responsibility? I don't see it. It should be super easy to track down who was *supposed* to sign it.

Is the claim that they're cackling villains and they didn't sign for the sheer perverse joy of committing one more totally insignificant paperwork misdemeanor, on top the actual thousands of felonies involved in actually falsifying ballots?

"For those who voted - sorry, too bad"

Well, fuck that. Not acceptable, and I don't believe for one second that you'd find it acceptable if it was done to you and your ballot.

In extreme circumstances I can see cancelling the whole election and doing it over. But cancelling the votes in your disfavored precincts and counting them in favored ones? Hard no.

[bernard11]

in a just world, those votes would be thrown out

Go back to talking about art.

Penalizing voters because administrators made a mistake is the furthest thing from justice.

[David Nieporent]

There really was an irregularity in Georgia, involving over 300K votes. This is a fact.

No; it is either a lie or a stupid inability to understand the situation. There was an "irregularity" involving zero votes.

[ThePublius]

"There was an "irregularity" involving zero votes."

You don't know that. You don't know how many fraudulent votes may have been included in that original tally, and in the recount tally (same). What do you think these polling procedures are for, anyway? Just ritual, or to waste time, or to keep poll workers busy?

[Joe_dallas]

ThePublius 4 minutes ago
DN comment - "There was an "irregularity" involving zero votes."
Publius response - "You don't know that. "

Not only does DN not know, DN knows what you stated is a reasonable assessment, yet he repeats talking points

[David Nieporent]

You don't know that.

I do know that. I am not claiming that not one single ineligible voter cast a ballot in Georgia in 2020 — that would be an absurd and impossible level of accuracy to achieve. I am saying that this "irregularity" has nothing to do with that. The papers that are missing signatures do not verify or certify that the votes were valid, or in any way relate to the fraudulence vel non of ballots.

[Krayt]

If you think the 300,000 votes were fraud, you're gonna need a lot more evidence of it before throwing it out (if that was even legal.)

A better observation is: if it were fraud, why wouldn't the fraudsters sign it to help hide it better?

This reminds me of after 9/11. Conspirators (no relation) claimed a missile hit the Pentagon. They couldn't claim so of the WTC, because at least 3 cams caught the first one, and nigh infinity the second. Obviously planes. So they goalpost shifted, it was planes, but other planes with windows painted on.

These theories, stupid as they are, are consistent individually, but make absolutely no sense in the aggregate. Why fake planes for the WTC, but not the Pentagon? You couldn't know there'd only be one shitty cam on it that mighta coulda sorta caught something.

There should be a name for this kind of argumentation, a conspiracy theory sort of argument that pushes what they can get away with every last detail, sans more powerful evidence.

Something like God of the Gaps. Secret Society of the Speculators. Fraud of the Facebook Posters. CT-or-Bust!

[ThePublius]

"A better observation is: if it were fraud, why wouldn't the fraudsters sign it to help hide it better?"

For the same reason safe crackers don't leave their fingerprints on bank vaults.

This worked! No one is culpable, because no one signed anything! It's just a big 'oopsie.' If they had signed and then fraudulent votes were discovered, they would be culpable. Why don't you guys get this? Now they can just shrug their shoulders and say "gee, I don't know!"

[ducksalad]

This worked! No one is culpable

1. First, BS. Upthread you wanted heads to roll over this. I think if you were in charge of making heads roll you'd have no problems finding people to blame. It should be easy to figure out who was on the team at each location and what their assigned jobs were.

2. Second, what's this part about "if...fraudulent votes were discovered". If this is really the issue, why don't you just focus on the fraudulent votes. They are fraudulent regardless of whether someone signed off on them.

3. Kind of an uncivil thing to say, but here it goes: We haven't forgotten who pushed the idea that whole states' votes could be cancelled by the VP. It's super obvious to all of us why that same group of people would want a rule that missing signatures can invalidate a whole precinct - they want the option to selectively leave off signatures and invalidate in 2026 or 2028. We aren't going to let you have such a rule.

[Malika la Maize]

“Yet so are Mr. Trump’s constantly shifting claims that the 2020 election was stolen, with every irregularity claimed as supposedly proving history’s biggest fraud.”

To me that’s a key line. Trump and his supporters cried wolf so many times that maybe when he cried when one actually was lurking about he was naturally ignored.

[ThePublius]

"when one actually was lurking about he was naturally ignored."

Oh, and that's O.K.?

Since it took four years to uncover this one, how do you know his other accusations are false? Maybe it's just that the truth hasn't come out yet.

I wonder what the results of 2020 would be if we rolled back all of the extra-legal changes made at the last moment of voting rules in key states. Like counting ballots past the postmark date rule, certifying unsigned ballots, certifying ballots with hokey signatures, and so on.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh for sure, the ex-stripper in Michigan, the recanting postal employee, etc., are all going to be proven to have been right.

Trump and his supporters were throwing everything on the wall that of course he wasn’t being taken seriously.

[Michael P]

It's totally different from the ever-shifting and ever-retreating theories about why Trump should be responsible for the J6 riot, see.

[hobie]

Part of the very schemes indicted in Georgia were the two [known] instances of MAGA operatives breaking into and stealing data from election systems in counties other than Fulton. Looks like ALL of Georgia is suspect.

[DDHarriman]

>“Yet an error by poll workers isn’t a reason to throw out tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by Georgians who did nothing wrong,”

See that bolded part? That's the contented part, and that ground shouldn't be conceded.

This is a rhetorical tactic by the Democrats. Ok sure thing B is wrong, but you must accept everything about A and not question it at all!!!

[Malika la Maize]

The Democrats on the WSJ editorial board?

[DDHarriman]

WSJ is totally MAGA guys!!! We saw it in the Bush eras when they were pushing for all those Jew-ordered wars in the Middle East

[Malika la Maize]

You said they were Democrats, which they certainly aren’t. You stepped in it again, dude.

[DDHarriman]

It is a rhetorical tactic Democrats use, yes. I said that. It is one that they use. That's still a true statement.

[Malika la Maize]

But here used by non-Democrats.

[SRG2]

See that bolded part? That's the contented part,

Nope. The conspiracists like yourself took the first part and concluded that this let them contest the bolded part.

[DDHarriman]

The first part says the second part should be verified as the first part was supposed to be the verification of the second part.

Why don't you want only verified votes to count in elections?

[SRG2]

Let's take a simple hypothetical. A state has a rule that after every 100 votes are cast, an official has to sign a sheet stating that votes #X to #(X+99) have been cast. The official neglects to do so in one case.

You would argue that all the 100 votes cast before the signing of the sheet are void. And you'd be wrong. And you'd argue that to count those 100 votes is fraud. And you'd be wrong there too.

What you and the other election nuts don't understand is a broad legal principle, going back centuries in English common law, that the failure to follow formalities does not inherently vitiate a process.

[DDHarriman]

That's a chain of custody violation. What happens in other situations where chain of custody matters, but there is a violation?

How do courts treat it?

[David Nieporent]

That would not be a chain of custody violation. Chain of custody is about the actual ballots, and nothing in that hypothetical involves any break in possession or control of the ballots themselves.

[David Nieporent]

Why don't you want only verified votes to count in elections?

Once more for the inbred people who call themselves "Heritage Americans" to make themselves feel better about their failures in life: this has nothing to do with the votes. Poll workers do not "verify" votes — whatever that phrase is being used to mean — in the first place. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of a single ballot.

[jb]

So... under your theory, who cast the ballots instead and how does the lack of a signed tape make that possible?

[Sarcastr0]

https://nstp.org/article/usps-announces-changes-postmark-date-system

USPS quietly changed its postmark rules — mail is no longer dated when you drop it off. The “official” date is when it hits automated sorting.

This is the final rule. Though specific implementation hasn't been rolled out which could have plenty of exceptions.

It looks like it's meant to go after mail-in voting with a trap for the unwary. But it also would mess with the longstanding systems for legal notices, evidence, taxes, bills, etc.

[ThePublius]

I find this troubling. But I wouldn't assume malice, I assume that it's to allow the automated systems to postmark and date mail, as doing so by the clerk at the P.O. would require several extra steps and accounting.

I often drop off mail in person because I want proof I mailed it. They charge $2.40 for proof of mailing for a single piece, which I think should be free.

For tax returns, legal notices, etc., this should work. See:

"Types of Proof of Mailing:
Certificate of Mailing (COM - PS Form 3817):
What it is: Official evidence you presented mail to USPS on a specific date.
Good for: Tax forms, legal documents where you need to prove when you mailed it.
Limitations: Does not provide delivery confirmation or insurance.
You must keep the receipt.
[and so on...]
"

[Commenter_XY]

USPS needs DOGE treatment.

[ThePublius]

I agree. I can imagine huge fraud, waste, and abuse in such an old, stodgy, unionized bureaucracy.

One thing that really bothers me is the new post office truck debacle. Hugely over budget, not yet deployed. Mostly electric, or headed for all electric by 2028, I think.

I think they should have sought Tesla's or Waymo's help, and designed a self-driving vehicle that could follow the letter carrier around (in good weather), as horses of yore did for the milkman. And, the vehicle could hand the letter carrier the next batch of mail to be delivered along the route. You could even hire letter carriers who don't have driver's licenses!

[Malika la Maize]

Fun fact: ICE is unionized and as (give or take a few years) old as the USPS.

[ThePublius]

Are you kidding?

ICE is 21 years old.
INS is 92 years old.
USPS is 250 years old.

Besides, that they are unionized is immaterial to the comment I made. More silly whataboutism from you.

[Malika la Maize]

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; pronounced "ice"ⓘ) is a federal law enforcement agency under the supervision of the United States Department of Homeland Security... It absorbed the prior functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Customs Service.

The United States Customs Service was a federal law enforcement agency of the U.S. federal government. Established on July 31, 1789.

From ICE and Customs Service wikis, respectively.

“that they are unionized is immaterial to the comment I made”

Really? Why’d you mention USPS was?

[ThePublius]

USCS is not ICE. ICE was created in 2003.

I mentioned that the USPS was unionized because I was talking about the USPS, stupid!

[Sarcastr0]

Intentionally or not, Malika posted pedant-bait. And you bit.

I tend to agree with you, but I'm also smart enough to know it doesn't fucking matter.

[Michael P]

You day it doesn't matter, but you are still so much of an asshole that you had to jump in to criticize the person who you recognize is right.

Get a fucking life, you troll.

[Malika la Maize]

USCS was absorbed into ICE.

I mean, if you want to be that pedantic:

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was a law passed by the United States Congress that abolished the then U.S. Post Office Department, which was a part of the Cabinet, and created the U.S. Postal Service, a corporation-like independent agency authorized by the U.S. government as an official service for the delivery of mail in the United States.

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

[ThePublius]

"USCS was absorbed into ICE."

Wrong.

"No, USCIS and ICE are separate agencies{, but they are both under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)}, created from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) after 9/11. USCIS handles immigration benefits (like green cards, visas), while ICE focuses on enforcement, interior immigration arrests, and removals, though their roles sometimes overlap in assisting each other."

[Malika la Maize]

Where are you getting that from? Are quotation marks without a source better than no quotation marks and a source supplied? Do you want to get Citation Detective Mikie Javert on the case?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"USCS was absorbed into ICE."

Oh FFS.

USCS was merged with the INS to form CBP.

ICE is under CBP.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, ICE is a separate organization, but the point stands.

[Malika la Maize]

“OK, ICE is a separate organization”

Oh, FFS

[TwelveInchPianist]

The point is that USCS wasn't absorbed into ICE. Contra you, it was largely merged with the INS to become CBP.

[Magister]

Oh, FFS

FFS was merged with WTF in 2007, but still distinct from both FAFO and FUBAR.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, they tried to merge them, but there was some sort of SNAFU.

[David Nieporent]

USCS is not ICE. ICE was created in 2003.

ICE was renamed and moved around an org chart in 2003. The agency existed long before that as the INS.

However, Malika is wrong and you are correct to distinguish ICE from Customs. Customs has existed since the country's founding; ICE has not (as should be obvious from the fact that ICE's mission is to harass illegal immigrants and there wasn't any such thing as an illegal immigrant back then).

[Michael P]

The Customs Service would be called a predecessor agency of ICE (and CBP). It did not have the same responsibilities as ICE -- the Wikipedia page for the US Customs Service points out that most of it went to CBP, and ICE had other predecessor agencies as well. The Customs Service was not ICE.

[Malika la Maize]

What was USCS was absorbed into ICE.

[ThePublius]

Wrong again. Stop making stuff up.

"No, USCIS and ICE are separate agencies{, but they are both under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)}, created from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) after 9/11. USCIS handles immigration benefits (like green cards, visas), while ICE focuses on enforcement, interior immigration arrests, and removals, though their roles sometimes overlap in assisting each other."

[Michael P]

It was not, as I explained, with reference to the very source that you apparently cited -- but did not read -- earlier: "most of [the US Customs Service] went to CBP", and CBP is distinct from ICE.

[Malika la Maize]

So your hat is hung on “it’s a predecessor agency but not *the* agency?” lol

[Michael P]

ICE is a fundamentally different agency from USCS. Your claim that ICE is "as (give or take a few years) old as the USPS" is not only wrong, but indefensible -- and your own apparent source makes that clear.

[Malika la Maize]

The predecessor agency is fundamentally different?

[David Nieporent]

The predecessor agency is fundamentally different?

Yes. Your comment is like saying that Apple TV has existed since the 1970s because Apple TV is a division of Apple and Apple has existed since the 1970s.

[Michael P]

Or perhaps like saying Lenovo sold tabulating machines to the Nazis because Lenovo bought IBM's laptop computer business. The Customs Service was the primary source of federal revenue for the country's first 150 years or so -- it's hugely ignorant to say that it was absorbed into ICE, much less that the transfer of certain investigative responsibilities means that ICE dates back to 1789.

[Malika la Maize]

There is an unbroken line from Apple to Apple TV.

[bernard11]

You mean fire a lot of people without saving any money?

[Bob from Ohio]

"fire a lot of people without saving any money"

The goal was the firing. Federal employment down 9% I believe,

[PaulS]

If you go to the counter and hand them the letter they will put on the postage - when they do this they usually input the zip code for the item. This is printed on the receipt - while not really proof of mailing many taxes are mailed to a zip code that is essentially dedicated.

[Frank Drackman]

My Dad still mails his estimated taxes, he doesn't trust the Internets, but he'll write a Check for $10,000 put it in a Paper Envelope in a box out in front of his house. I used to do the same, but I'd send it Certified mail, so at least I'd get a notice of when the IRS got it, took them 3 months to cash the check one time, they sent me a Nasty-gram about how I didn't pay my estimated taxes, had to send them a Fax (it's the IRS) of the cancelled Check, now I do it all on the website, if Mustaffa in Fuckmeastan gets my Routing Number, oh well.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Your Dad is smart. Electronic submissions are being triaged by AI now and if they detect something there is no human intervention you just get a notice and then you have to battle the system, which we all know is filled with Sarcastr0's so you know they hate you and suck at their jobs.

Physically mailed submissions are always read by humans first.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "It looks like it's meant to go after mail-in voting with a trap for the unwary."

You don't think it may have been for efficiency purposes? To reduce costs? There are no alternative ways to accomplish postmarking at drop-off time? (Like I think all you have to do is ask them to postmark at the counter.)

Progress is a threat with you at the helm.

"USPS quietly changed its postmark rule"

It just gets harder and harder to vote in the U.S. But they couldn't slip this chicanery past an always astute you.

"Elmer J. Fudd at the ready, sir!"

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, give your Sarc ankle-biting a rest, it’s reasonable to assume this administration might be up to this to try to impact voting Bwaari.

[ThePublius]

"it’s reasonable to assume this administration might be up to this to try to impact voting Bwaari."

No, it's not reasonable to assume so. It's deranged to assume so.

"What You Should Do
For Deadlines (Taxes, Ballots, Legal):
Get a Manual Postmark: Go inside the post office and ask for a hand-applied postmark on the day you mail it (it's free)."

[Malika la Maize]

No, given the Trump administration’s rhetoric and (including attempted) actions regarding mail voting it’s quite reasonable. Not conclusive, of course, but certainly not unreasonable.

"What You Should Do
For Deadlines (Taxes, Ballots, Legal):
Get a Manual Postmark: Go inside the post office and ask for a hand-applied postmark on the day you mail it (it's free)."

Requiring a further step is kind of a sine qua non of modern voter suppression.

[ThePublius]

Can you show a connection between the Trump administration and the decision for this change?

[Malika la Maize]

Isn’t the Trump administration in charge of USPS?

[ThePublius]

Not really! He's the president, but he doesn't call the shots at USPS. It's run by a board of governors.

[Sarcastr0]

"In March 2025, the board of governors of the United States Postal Service began searching for a successor to Louis DeJoy, the United States postmaster general who resigned in March after his five-year commitment as Postmaster General ended. In May, The Washington Post reported that the candidates had narrowed to Steiner, Jim Cochrane, and William Zollars. President Donald Trump dismissed Zollars and privately stated that he would favor Steiner.[24] On May 9, the board of governors announced that Steiner would serve as postmaster general in July. President Trump said he hoped the Postal Service would "operate a lot better than it has been over the years" and that "nobody has ever delivered the mail like Steiner."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Steiner

[Bob from Ohio]

I fondly recall the left panic over DeJoy in 2020.

Now its you with a new conspiracy theory. No shame.

[Sarcastr0]

You think everyone acts the same as a MAGA shitposter.

But unlike some on here, when I say "It looks like" that's what I mean.
I'm not going to be pushing the 'it's super clear guys!' truth that this was a Trump-planned attack on mail-in voting. And it seems at least JoeFromtheBronx is similarly not running with this.

As I said, the impact will be via the implementation plan anyhow.

[Malika la Maize]

“Now it’s you with a new conspiracy theory. No shame.”

Did someone say ankle-biting?

[Bob from Ohio]

"It looks like"

So your conspiracy theory is hedged, its still a conspiracy theory.

[David Nieporent]

Requiring a further step is kind of a sine qua non of modern voter suppression.

Well, no. Citing trivial requirements as "voter suppression" just makes liberals look dumb and discredits any legitimate arguments they may have. Firehoses turned on people trying to register to vote is voter suppression. Having to go inside the post office to mail your ballot if one decides to wait until the very last minute to mail one's ballot is not in any sane sense a form of voter suppression.

[Malika la Maize]

It requires an extra step, which some non-zero number can be counted on to not take.

[Jerry B.]

If you can go to the Post Office, you should be able to go to the polling place and vote (and save a stamp).

[Malika la Maize]

Post offices and polling places are often in different places relative to where a person works or lives.

[Magister]

Also, you may have a polling place that has immense lines, if you live where Republicans have implemented their usual voter suppression techniques.

[ThePublius]

What "usual voter suppression techniques?"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If you can go to the Post Office, you should be able to go to the polling place and vote (and save a stamp).

Our mail-in ballot has free postage.

Even beyond the possibility of the post office being more convenient location-wise, a person can go to the post office more times than a polling place, which will be open limited days.

If they didn't have to go to the post office at all, it would be even more convenient, including if they could simply hand it to a mail person when they deliver mail to their residence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"give your Sarc ankle-biting"

Doubly ironic.

You bite Fran's ankles constantly and Sarcasto does the same for Brett, and others. He's the biggest ankle biter here.

[Absaroka]

I think it is just acknowledging the facts on the ground. USPS is/has been consolidating processing in regional facilities, and that has meant a same day postmark is not assured for a while now (in general ... you can go to the counter and get a postmark or other proof of mailing). They backed off, but earlier this year the PO was going to shut down the two sort centers in Wyoming and move all the mail to MT or CO, then truck the local mail back. Imagine trying to do same day postmarks with a winter storm going on.

In fact, the PO doesn't guarantee you'll get a postmark at all, Maybe 10% of our mail arrives without one. My wife likes to mail old-school birthday and thank you cards. It's not at all uncommon for one to take 10 days to go a couple miles across town. I haven't paid attention to postmarks, but it's been a few years since I would trust ordinary first class mail to arrive promptly or get postmarked at all.

Denmark is shutting down their postal service. Just saying...

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was a kid back in the 60's, if you mailed a letter across town in the morning, there was a good chance it would be delivered that evening, because the mail never traveled past your local post office if the destination was local.

[ducksalad]

When I was a kid in the 60s my brother mailed a handmade postcard to a friend a half mile up the street. It got delivered, with no postmark, in about five minutes.

[Magister]

Why, when I was a kid, mail was delivered before it was even sent, through snow and tiger attacks and uphill both ways. That saved us the trouble of sending it at all, although for courtesy we usually still sent it.

[DDHarriman]

Oh My Conspiracies!!

>It looks like it's meant to go after mail-in voting with a trap for the unwary.

Pure vibes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It looks like it's meant to go after mail-in voting with a trap for the unwary. "

Hey everyone, conspiracy theories are back on the menu!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This [the postal matter] is getting some attention.

I think the concern of bad faith here is not groundless, though, since it doesn't involve 2020 vote counts, maybe that is too suspicious of me. I josh, of course.

The bottom line is that if voting by mail is threatened, it is something to address before the 2026 midterm elections.

[Absaroka]

"I think the concern of bad faith here is not groundless"

If so, who is to blame? The slide in delivery has been going on for a few administrations. Are they all conspiring to undermine mail voting?

For example:

"Since 2021, the U.S. Postal Service has been implementing major infrastructure and operational changes to lower costs and improve efficiency ..."

IMHE the results one gets from the PO are highly local. If you've been getting timely service all along, lucky you. But the service we experience has been steadily going downhill for at least a couple decades.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I will repeat that "I think the concern of bad faith here is not groundless." That doesn't mean it was actually done in bad faith.

[Such concerns are not coming out of thin air. See, e.g., https://votingrightslab.org/2025/08/25/mail-voting-is-under-attack-again/%5D

Also, citing some long-term development doesn't negate concerns about a specific change. It probably suggests arguments of good faith are not groundless.

If "it's meant to go after mail-in voting with a trap for the unwary," I suppose the current people in control are "to blame" to some significant degree.

But, anyway, my ultimate concern is to safeguard voting by mail from any hindrances the change will bring.

If people want to keep on debating blame, go ahead. I would rather, in such situations, focus on practical issues.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

(didn't have time to edit the end of that link; it should end at the slash)

[ThePublius]

"The bottom line is that if voting by mail is threatened, it is something to address before the 2026 midterm elections."

Yea, we should just end voting by mail except in rare and exigent cases.

[jb]

Coincidentally, those rare and exigent cases are only going to apply to groups that mostly vote Republican.

[ThePublius]

And how's that?

[jb]

Well, tell us who you think the "rare and exigent" circumstances should apply to and we'll see.

[ducksalad]

How would you feel about this alternative:

1. Literally all voting must be in person, but
2. Plentiful early voting opportunities, including some evening and weekend hours, for about 30 days*, and
3. For the few people who are absolutely immobile (paralyzed, in pre-trial detention, superglue accidents) a team consisting of an election worker, a witness, and optional poll-watchers does a house call during the early voting period.

---
*Why 30 days? Mainly to account for people with busy schedules, work trips, and vacations. But also because that's roughly what courts are willing to allow as a waiting period to become a resident eligible to vote. If you plan to be somewhere else for 30 days, by the same reasoning your "residence" is that other place.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't like early voting of that extent much, because it allows candidates to lock in their vote before the campaign is actually over. It's not too much to ask that everybody vote based on at least potentially the same information. A week, maximum.

I do agree with the in person polling place teams for actual lock-ins, and have been proposing that for many years now as an alternative to absentee voting.

Maybe when you're going to be out of town for weeks prior to the election, or unexpectedly on election day, (In 2016 I didn't vote; A close relative died the weekend before the election, and I was about 800 miles from home on election day.) there should be some arrangement where you can go to another state's polling place, get a printed out paper ballot, and vote there with full security.

[jb]

"Maybe when you're going to be out of town for weeks prior to the election, or unexpectedly on election day, (In 2016 I didn't vote; A close relative died the weekend before the election, and I was about 800 miles from home on election day.) there should be some arrangement where you can go to another state's polling place, get a printed out paper ballot, and vote there with full security."

Of course, this would require much greater centralization and standardization of voting mechanism then exists today. Not only does that seem contrary to the Constitutional design, but would at least make it somewhat easier to have the consequences of a flaw in election process bleed out from one voting jurisdiction to others.

Since absentee voting has been going on since before the country even existed, I'm not sure why you think it's a problem that needs to be fixed

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a problem because, barring online voting, it's the least secure form of voting around.

Maybe that wasn't a big deal when it was only permitted for cause, and accordingly rare, but once it became at will, and started representing an important fraction of the total vote, that insecurity started to become a real threat to the safety of our elections.

[Malika la Maize]

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) criticized President Trump on Monday for appearing to side with Russia in its claims that Ukraine attempted a drone attack on a residence of President Vladimir Putin, accusing Moscow’s leader of frequently lying.

“President Trump and his team should get the facts first before assuming blame. Putin is a well known boldface liar,” Bacon wrote on the social platform X…

Asked if there’s evidence of the attack, Trump replied: “Well, we’ll find out. You’re saying maybe the attack didn’t take place? That’s possible, I guess, but President Putin told me this morning.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5665741-trump-sides-russia-ukraine-drone/

[Frank Drackman]

Gotta admit I agree with your Police work there Queenie, Head of States are legitimate Targets, so are other Top Government Officials, (see Qasem Soul-man-ani, or what's left of him)

[ThePublius]

I wouldn't give Queenie any credit here, she's just copying newspaper articles, part of her schtick of using Open Thread as her person news aggregation site. Notice, no quotation marks, and no commentary? Just excerpted articles with a link. I guess we're supposed to react in some way to this, I just ignore those posts for the most part. There are plenty of news aggregation sites, no need to clog this thread up with that stuff.

[Malika la Maize]

Would you like cheese with your whine?

[ThePublius]

I'm not whining, I'm just making an observation. Tell me how it's not true.

[Frank Drackman]

You just reminded me of that scene from "Dazed & Confused"

Clint(Nicky Katt): What did you just say?
Mike (Adam Goldberg): What?
Clint: Just now, man. When you walked past, what'd you say?
Mike: About what?
Clint: You said, "Someone's tokin' some reefer."
Mike: No, I meant somewhere I smell some pot, you know? It was just an observation.
Clint: Oh, an observation, huh? Well who the hell are you, man? Isaac fucking Newton?

[Malika la Maize]

Your whining. Most posts here are a nod to a story in the news, or worse, like you do, links to a tweet. You’re just doing your usual partisanship thing, like when you clutch pearls over the slightest incivility by an anti-MAGA person while ignoring it when MAGAns do it.

[ThePublius]

It's "you're," not "your." Stick to quoting the newspapers.

And you apparently don't know what "whining" means.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure I do, it’s complaining or inclined to complain in a childish or petulant manner. You know, what you’re doing.

[Michael P]

Why are you still yelling at other people because you're too lazy to properly quote the third-party text you spew here?

[Malika la Maize]

Also whining.

[Michael P]

OK, then: Why are you still whining and yelling at other people because you're too lazy to properly quote the third-party text you spew here?

[Malika la Maize]

Even Pubes’ comment only barely mentioned the lack of quotes which has you so frothing at the mouth. I’m not yelling at either of you, I’m laughing at (both of) your pedantic, partisan fueled obsession with my posting style.

[Michael P]

And we're laughing at you, who shits over all these threads with stupid lies, incompetent excerpts, incoherent complaints (even when it means you act like a fan of drug cartels) and lazy retorts (even when it makes you look ever more like a clown).

Even Gaslight0 felt obliged to jump in to try to rescue you.

[Malika la Maize]

Keep it frothy, Mikie Q!

[Brett Bellmore]

Like Frank says, I'm not seeing the problem if they did do it. Putin was a legit target, became one the moment he invaded Ukraine. And killing him actually is the most plausible route to ending the war.

[Malika la Maize]

To me the larger story is Trump’s credulous deference to Putin.

[SRG2]

Not a new story. He believed Putin over US intelligence services, remember? Plus his body language when Putin's around...

[SRG2]

Is Trump a legit target for Venezuela? Your argument would appear to make him so.

[ducksalad]

Unlike you and Brett, I am not a specialist in the international laws of war. However, even a child knows that every single piece of international law has an Implied Clause Zero:

"This agreement protects Us but does not bind Us. It binds Them but does not protect Them."

Is there any exception to this clause? Yes: it's reversed if you lose a war.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup.

[Krayt]

During war, heads of state are legitimate military targets. How dare he invade another country, then act shocked...shocked! the opposing side tried to wax him directly.

Laws against assassination are for times of peace, for international comity. Does not apply here.

[Malika la Maize]

Count Gonzaga University men’s basketball head coach Mark Few among those frustrated with the direction of his sport.

Coaches across college sports have taken issue with recent changes, as student-athletes being able to receive name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation and transfer multiple times without penalty have altered the industry.

Concern from coaches in men’s college basketball reached a boiling point last week when 21-year-old James Nnaji, a former NBA Draft pick, committed to Baylor University and was awarded four years of eligibility by the NCAA. 

“Our lack of leadership has really shown,” Few told reporters Sunday after his team beat Pepperdine University 96-56, according to the Spokesman-Review. “Now it’s probably time to get some help from Congress, but they’re more screwed up than the NCAA…”

Congress waded into the debate earlier this year, as the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsement (SCORE) Act fractured the GOPand garnered opposition from Democrats. Earlier this month, House leadership canceled a vote on the SCORE Act, which would have regulated compensation student-athletes receive from NIL deals.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5665662-ncaa-nil-transfers-mark-few-congress/?tbref=hp

[SRG2]

It seems that coaches don't like the free market.

[Malika la Maize]

Unless it’s their ability to negotiate and move between offered jobs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It seems that coaches don't like the free market."

Its not a free market. Bigger colleges or ones with more rabid alums can raise more money than most others. So they cannot compete, no matter what.

Its a cartel situation.

[SRG2]

That someone has more buying power than someone else doesn't make a market less free. A cartel would be if buyers clubbed together to agree not to pay up. As they did for generations.

[John F. Carr]

There are different kinds of cartels. The major leagues decided long ago that balanced spending is in the long term interests of labor and management. College basketball is organized in a way that does not allow it to impose a measure of fairness the way OPEC and the NFL can.

An aggressive labor organizer might want to create an NCAA-wide union.

[Krayt]

And the larger city teams exceed the sending caps, and just pay the penalties as the cost of doing business.

[bernard11]

Its not a free market. Bigger colleges or ones with more rabid alums can raise more money than most others. So they cannot compete, no matter what.

Yes, and wealthy people can afford nicer houses, cars, etc. than most others. That's still a free market.

Its a cartel situation.

No, it's not remotely a cartel. One way to know this is to observe that the schools compete for players, who often move from school to school for more money.

The whole point of a cartel would be to agree on fixed prices, which they clearly don't do.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that does not in any way make it "not a free market." Market participants do not all have equal resources in any market.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(NIL) compensation"

NIL was sold as letting poor college kids sell autographs or make ads for the local car dealer. Not the way it is done, just the same envelopes of cash but now legal.

Sold as a fraud. Operates as a cartel with the SEC and the hysterically named Big "Ten" acting like as Saudi Arabia and Gulf States in OPEC.

[SRG2]

What Bob really meant to say was, "I don't like the idea that some small proportion of the hundreds of millions of dollars received by institutions managed by old white guys and paid to old white coaches should go to the young black kids who are actually playing the games that generate all those revenues."

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, the Race Card. Very convincing.

[SRG2]

Bob, we know you're a racist. Wear that badge with pride!

[David Nieporent]

It's hard to see why it's any business of Congress's. (And yes, I know that can be said about so many things.)

[Commenter_XY]

Now it appears that POTUS Trump authorized a land attack within VEN's borders, and said as much yesterday during his press conf with Zelensky. A port facility, perhaps.

Regardless, where is the outcry from Congress (about an act of war)? The Congress has been briefed on what we are doing, and there is no Congressional action, afterward. To me, it looks like there is nothing but Congressional silence. Why?

The six congressional nutjobs don't count. The House is more or less evenly split, and I don't see much of Team D saying anything about VEN, let alone insisting on a vote for use of force. Why?

Say what you will about POTUS Trump (there is plenty to say), but I am looking at Congress much more critically here. The Senate looks like a bunch of nursing home residents. The House? It will be gerrymandered to death, and likely not reflecting the popular will of the country. The Art 1 branch is in trouble, structurally.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey an attack on Congress from a Trump supporter.
Calling them old. From a Trump supporter.

Saying Dems have been quiet about attacks on Venezuela, or just this one attack that happened while Congress was in recess?

Eh, forget it, it's MAGA-town.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m shocked, shocked to find a supine, gerrymandered Congress!

[Krayt]

I'm shocked, shocked to find politicians running for the caves when their moment to stand up appears.

It's understandable, all downside and very little upside. It's the same reason they drag ass on laws against 3 letter agency spying domestically. The upside? Some patriotic people praise you in the abstract. The downside? "My opponent is putting Americans at risk!" And god help them if they reined in spying just a tad, and some big incident happens.

All risk, little benefit. Hide, keep your mouth shut.

[Bwaaah]

Maybe Democrats are beginning to think it's not a winning message to always be screaming about the unjust treatment of bad guys?

Probably not. But maybe.

[Malika la Maize]

Due process for the accused is such a losing strategy!

Very recently disaffected liberal!

[bloocow2]

What makes you think they're bad guys? Because your government said so? Have they provided evidence beyond their say-so?

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal has total faith in government’s accusations!

[DDHarriman]

Because we have eyes and lived through the past 20+ years.

Hbu? What makes you think they're the bad guys?

[Malika la Maize]

How do you think this is an answer to bloocow2?

[Michael P]

It's an appropriate answer to sealioning, especially when the sea lion acts like a fan of drug-dealing, mass-murdering cartels who have repeatedly created millions upon millions of international refugees / asylum seekers.

[bloocow2]

Oh yes, I love drugs and drug cartels, you got me! Another intelligent and reasonable argument from the reason.com comments section!

There's one thing your administration could do, of course, to erase all scepticism about what they're doing: arrest the drug smugglers! You could make a big show of all the drugs you seized, instead of showing people a burning shipwreck and saying "oh but there were drugs on there, we promise". Why not arrest them?

Try to answer without a strawman this time.

[Michael P]

If you're not a fan of the cartels, maybe don't act like one.

The US cannot very realistically go into Venezuela and arrest the smugglers or cartel bosses there.

The US government does what you suggest when it can, but these drugs boats try very hard to escape. And when stories like https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coast-guard-seizes-cocaine-single-boat-record-pacific-ocean/ come up, commenters who act like fans of the cartels busily deny that such a boat could be carrying ten (short) tons of drugs.

[Malika la Maize]

People who ask for proof beyond the federal government word are surely rooting for drug dealers!

[Michael P]

More like "people who suggest the US invade Venezuela to arrest drug smugglers are self-evidently being unreasonable", but you've never been good at observing the self-evident.

[Malika la Maize]

Who wrote: The US government does what you suggest when it can?

[Michael P]

It's news to Malicia that a person can suggest more than one thing. Or maybe that someone can suggest something impractical or impossible (in addition to something practical). I even specifically noted that the US can't -- legally, practically, etc. -- invade Venezuela right now. Or maybe you think extraordinary rendition would be fine in this context, even without the cooperation of the country where it would happen? I count that as not something the US can (practically) do.

[Malika la Maize]

So you concede there is another way to fight the alleged narco-terrorists and that we actually do it, but those who suggest we stick to it must therefore be for the way of invading Venezuela to arrest drug dealers? A classic false dilemma.

[Magister]

You could make a big show of all the drugs you seized, instead of showing people a burning shipwreck and saying "oh but there were drugs on there, we promise". Why not arrest them?

The US cannot very realistically go into Venezuela and arrest the smugglers or cartel bosses there.

That doesn't address the question of whether the US could arrest the people on boats in international waters instead of sinking the boats.

[Michael P]

My next paragraph did address that question. I would call you another sealion, but they're usually more careful.

[Magister]

Leading with a non sequitur, and then not addressing murdering people who are clinging to the wreckage, which rebuts the claim that the US government is doing what was suggested when it can.

[Michael P]

It's entirely a sequitur to point out that the most arrestable smugglers operate from a country whose leader engages in literal saber-rattling against the US, and that this makes it impractical for the US government to arrest them.

And I am not going to preemptively address every single random, tangentially related, potential argument that someone might make. Complaining that I didn't just demonstrates how unreasonable you are.

[Malika la Maize]

Border interdiction, how does it work?

[Magister]

There's one thing your administration could do, of course, to erase all scepticism about what they're doing: arrest the drug smugglers! You could make a big show of all the drugs you seized, instead of showing people a burning shipwreck and saying "oh but there were drugs on there, we promise". Why not arrest them?

The non sequitur is turning to the question of doing anything with people within Venezuela in response to a question about burning shipwrecks.

Taking a stance like "the government is doing what it can but is still unable to arrest people clinging to wreckage" is a pretty harsh indictment of the government's competence.

[Michael P]

The US does not, in fact, "show[] people a burning shipwreck and say[] 'oh but there were drugs on there, we promise'". I extended the charity of reading his comment to refer to the general situation rather than literally to something that he merely imagined, but apparently Magister wants us to treat bloocow2 as a bald-faced liar instead.

[Magister]

The Trump administration showed video of a strike on a boat they claimed had drugs, leaving it burning. So what do you think would make bloocow2 a "bald-faced liar" by insisting that the discussion be of the question asked? Well, I can understand why someone would want to pivot to some irrelevant alternative, but it's just making you look even stupider (OK, quite the feat).

[Michael P]

Shove off with your sealioning. What I said was true, no matter how much you want to twist bloocow's comment to try to justify it.

[Magister]

It was an irrelevant observation, regardless of truth. You seem to be having trouble understanding comments you reply to.

[Michael P]

Arresting people on land is normally much easier and more reliable than arresting them when they are trying to evade arrest on a go-fast boat. When someone suggests arresting smugglers, it is entirely relevant -- and sensible -- to explain why that general truth does not obtain in the present circumstances.

I realize this is an inconvenient truth for the purposes of your misdirected rage, but you should improve your thinking rather than being angry at me.

[Magister]

When someone suggests arresting smugglers who are in boats in international waters, it is stupid deflection to talk about how it can or can't be done on land in another country.

[David Nieporent]

There's one thing your administration could do, of course, to erase all scepticism about what they're doing:

Not pardon a guy convicted of being part of one of the biggest international smuggling efforts ever?

[Malika la Maize]

So I get you American Renaissance types feel the need to white knight these Daily Stormers, but take a minute to look at this.

In regards to the administration’s boat strikes bloocow2 said:

What makes you think they're bad guys? Because your government said so? Have they provided evidence beyond their say-so?

Harriman replied:

Because we have eyes and lived through the past 20+ years.

Hbu? What makes you think they're the bad guys?

Let’s take that first part: is it that his lived experience for the last 20+ years provides him evidence that the particular targets of the strikes were trafficking drugs when they were struck? That makes no sense.

But the second part is more weird. Why does he ask bloocow2 what makes him who are the “bad guys” when bloocow2’s point is “how do we know who the bad guys are?”

[DDHarriman]

Here's how, CCP Bug, let me show you how us humans reason about English words:

What makes you think they're bad guys? (No) Because your government said so? (No) Have they provided evidence beyond their say-so? (No, we think they're the bad guys) Because we have eyes and lived through the past 20+ years( and thus can see they really are the bad guys)

Does this help your kind better understand human communication - the Heritage American dialect in particular?

[Malika la Maize]

I love how he adds these () phrases while saying “my original answer was obvious!”

So for the last 20 years you lived around Venezuelan villages?

[DDHarriman]

Do bugs not know what the human ability of "inference" is?

Further, I clearly stated I was going to illuminate human thinking ability on the passage so you can explicitly see how modern humans think. That's this part here:
" let me show you how us humans reason about English words:"

What's that in your language? Does your kind even have a language or is it just some random bug noises?

[Malika la Maize]

“You should infer all the many words necessary for my word salad to make sense!”

Lol, why are white supremacists so mentally inferior? Please don’t speak for us, ya goof.

[DDHarriman]

You think that's a word salad? lol wtf, you fucking bugs are stupid

[Malika la Maize]

I know it is and have shown it, no substantive response from you.

[John F. Carr]

While there is a substantial amount of "we shouldn't be doing this" out there, I don't see any significant amount of "we're blowing up good guys."

[Michael P]

There is, however, a significant amount of people claiming things like "go-fast smuggling boats might ackchyually be innocent fishermen, just off course, without fishing equipment and with nowhere to put their catch".

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Right, only smugglers drive boats quickly in the ocean. Thus death penalty with no due process is justified. It's going to be a bloodbath here on the NC outer banks.

[Michael P]

Excellent illustration of my observation.

Driving a boat quickly in the ocean is never the only predicate for attacking them. Fleeing from US government ships in an unflagged vessel that looks like a smuggling boat? I suppose deeply unserious people think that's typical fisherman behavior, but I think it's more that deeply unserious people pretend they think that to perform outrage.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure why you're lying. The administration is not blowing up boats that it has tried to stop but that ran away from our vessels. It is just saying, "We need to distract from all the other things we're doing wrong so we need to manufacture military porn These people are bad so we need to kill them."

[Commenter_XY]

I doubt it, Bwaaah. They'll stand up for drug dealers, drug smugglers, fraudsters and gangbangers before standing up for US citizens.

[Malika la Maize]

Asking for proof of justification for federal government use of deadly force is “standing up for drug dealers.” I guess the only investigation you wanted when Babitt was shot was to ask the Capitol police if it was justified and upon them saying yes leave it at that?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

All those groups of people are more honest than the Trump administration.

[bernard11]

Do you think suspected drug dealers have any rights at all, or is mere suspicion enough to justify killing them - no investigation, no arrest, no trial?

Yeah. Let's line up with Iran, China, North Korea, etc.

Once again conservatives who think government is hopelessly inept, incompetent, and corrupt suddenly imagine that when it comes to things like this, it never errs, and performs flawlessly.

[Commenter_XY]

The antics of the FBI, CIA and NSA over the last several decades tells me what I need to know vis a vis government corruption and incompetence. The Cauliflower certainly checked those boxes.

These strikes are occurring in intl waters, pursuant to a legally promulgated order from POTUS Trump. The drug dealers and drug smugglers better have paid up life insurance premiums, as they board their drug boats. B/c there is a rising, non-zero chance they're going to die. And we will double-tap to make sure of it.

Two additional thoughts. You might start thinking about what will happen when tens of thousands of addicts cannot get their drugs. They'll need treatment, and potential short term confinement. Also, we have a long border with CAN. They're notably unhelpful. Maybe they should reconsider.

Every year, we have tens of thousands of Americans dying from these drugs, esp fentanyl, that flooded our country. That must end. Funny how I don't hear about your concern for these Americans, bernard11. But drug dealers and drug smugglers?...Your concern is touching.

Just remember, I am the guy harping about Congress needing to debate this policy (and do their f'in job). Congressional silence here is not golden.

[David Nieporent]

legally promulgated order from POTUS Trump.

Um, no. POTUS has no authority in the absence of an imminent military attack or authorization from Congress to order our military to even fire weapons at people, let alone to specifically murder them.

Every year, we have tens of thousands of Americans dying from these drugs, esp fentanyl, that flooded our country.

There is no fentanyl on these boats. That's not where it comes from.

[Sarcastr0]

Q: "Do you think suspected drug dealers have any rights at all, or is mere suspicion enough to justify killing them - no investigation, no arrest, no trial?"

A: "drug dealers and drug smugglers?...Your concern is touching."

So no rights, no investigation. And if anyone disagrees with you, they love drug smugglers and dealers.

What a terrible way to be.

[Absaroka]

"These strikes are occurring in intl waters, pursuant to a legally promulgated order from POTUS Trump"

Does this work for all presidents? As in if President Maduro or President Castro or Grand Poobah Khomeini or the Dear Leader Kim Jong Whoever legally promulgates an order and zaps a boat of Americans in international waters, it's all good, no objections here?

[ducksalad]

A port facility, perhaps

One could conjure up an image of a Venezuelan naval base, a pitched battle, capsized warships, mile high columns of black smoke from the exploding fuel depot. Deafening roar from the squadrons of US aircraft swarming above the chaos. A sort of half-sized Pearl Harbor.

Or...one could conjure up an image of a crude log pier and thatched roof boat shed, with no people present and having nothing to do with the Venezuelan government, known only to its "owner", set on fire by some local paid off by the CIA.

From what I can tell Maduro has decided to act like it's the latter and doesn't cross any (new) red lines for him.

So yeah, I completely agree Congress had and has a duty either to terminate or endorse the Venezuela campaign. But not because of this particular incident. They should have acted months ago, and more generally they should have acted decades ago to limit this sort of stuff.

[DDHarriman]

Why would Democrats in government turn a blind eye to such rampant fraud?

We're seeing it beyond Big Mogadishu. This childcare scam seems to be in other states too.

[DDHarriman]

Also in Big Mogadishu - one voter with an id can "vouch" for 8 others without IDs. Further, residence hall employees can "vouch" for an unlimited number of ID-less residents.

Voting in the US is the only thing Democrats seem to want to be on the honor system.

[Longtobefree]

Best solution: require a concealed carry id to vote.
Everybody gets a full background check, and it cannot be considered to suppress voting because it is OK for the bill of rights stuff.

[John F. Carr]

Red flag laws would allow suspension of voting rights on the grounds that the citizen is acting contrary to the best interests of democracy.

[Michael P]

And states with constitutional carry would disenfranchise their citizens entirely.

I read it as a facetious suggestion, likely inspired by the arguments some on the left make that we should make it as easy to vote as to buy or own a gun.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it is a reasonable point: Anti-gunners have declared how hard they think it can be made to exercise a constitutional right, let them choke on it.

[David Nieporent]

Also in Big Mogadishu - one voter with an id can "vouch" for 8 others without IDs.

Setting aside the racist stupidity, it's false and wrong. In Minnesota, like many other states, registered voters can vouch — swear under oath — about where someone lives. Not about their identities.

[jay.tee]

[…] about where someone lives. Not about their identities.

In practice, this is incorrect. The person being vouched for (the vouchee, so to speak) does not require any form of ID. In other words, the person vouching for another provides all information necessary to authenticate the vouchee.

Pretty silly to assume vouching confirms physical address but not identity.

https://www.sos.mn.gov/media/kxzpm3bx/election-day-registration.pdf

[David Nieporent]

In practice, this is incorrect. The person being vouched for (the vouchee, so to speak) does not require any form of ID. In other words, the person vouching for another provides all information necessary to authenticate the vouchee.

It is true that Minnesota does not require voter ID to vote. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the vouching rule. The voucher is not affirming, "This person is Steve Jones." The voucher is affirming, "This person lives at 1421 Third Avenue."

[jay.tee]

Again, your explanation makes no sense.

The voucher is not affirming, "This person is Steve Jones." The voucher is affirming, "This person lives at 1421 Third Avenue."

Vouching Joe Smith lives at 1421 Third Avenue makes a claim about Joe Smith’s 1) address and 2) identity.

I mean, if we play out your assertion, we get an asinine result:

I don’t know who the f*ck that is, but she lives at 1421 Third Avenue.

And that’s not even wading into the discussion of voter ID laws.

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law looks ahead at the year in workplace discrimination law, in particular a clash between two groups, each newly empowered to weaponize the law against the other. On one side, the fragile snowflakes who will literally die if somebody uses the wrong pronoun. On the other side, the newly converted who will suffer eternal damnation if they use the wrong pronoun.

I remember stories about two endangered species, one of which eats the other. As a boss, what do you do if Pat claims a right to be referred to as "zir", and Chris says his religion dictates that "he" is correct? If Chris wins Pat has a viable discrimination claim and if Pat wins Chris has a viable discrimination claim.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-rows-on-pronoun-policy-weekend-work-loom-in-new-year
https://apple.news/AVjoyBhX8RBO8y4EA9FHzhw

In other employment law news, the article observes that despite the Trump administration's general preference for socially conservative Christians in culture war fights it did sue to get Muslim workers time off for Friday prayers.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As a boss, what do you do if Pat claims a right to be referred to as "zir", and Chris says his religion dictates that "he" is correct?"

In principle it should be an easy call: Religious liberty is an enumerated constitutional right, as is freedom of speech. Statutory privileges should always lose to actual constitutional rights.

[ducksalad]

In principle, if it's a private employer the government shouldn't have a whole lot to do with it either way.

But if the government decides to get involved I agree they shouldn't do it in a way that privileges social goals over constitutional rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

John did say "discrimination claim", so the government was implicitly involved.

[Josh R]

The religious discrimination claim for a private-sector employer comes from Title VII (yes, the same statute for the harassment on the basis of sex claim). The Free Exercise clause would likely not be availing because Title VII's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex is a generally-applicable and neutral law triggering only rational-basis review under Employment Division v. Smith.

[Brett Bellmore]

And THAT is why I said, "in principle".

I'm well aware the Court will allow explicit constitutional rights that are stated quite absolutely to be infringed by general laws on the basis of "compelling government interest". A phrase which, unlike "Congress shall make no law" or "Shall not be infringed", appears nowhere in the Constitution.

[Josh R]

Generally-applicable and neutral laws which incidentally impact religious practice are not required to overcome strict scrutiny and thus require no compelling government interest. As such, your principle (at the very least) requires overruling Employment Division.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I would.

[John F. Carr]

Complicating matters, the boss might doubt the sincerity of Chris' newly acquired religious beliefs. The boss might doubt that being called "he" behind zir back really is harmful to Pat. Maybe they are both playing dominance games.

[Jmaie]

IMHO most bosses would likely just be thinking, “oh FFS just shut up and go back to work.“

[Josh R]

What if Pat is called "he" to Pat's face?

[David Nieporent]

That would be weird. Why would one use a third person pronoun when speaking to a person?

[Josh R]

In a meeting with Pat in attendance, the boss asks you whether Pat's analysis is correct. You respond, "he was mistaken."

[SimonP]

I have Jewish colleagues who observe the Sabbath. Every Friday and at the start of many religious holidays, they go offline at sundown, which often means I have to adjust workflows around their unavailability, including by completing work for them. I do not share their religious beliefs and (theologically speaking) I see no reason to respect those beliefs. My employer, however, is statutorily obligated to provide them that accommodation. (And the Supreme Court seems prepared to hold that no law could constitutionally require otherwise.)

Should I be constitutionally or statutorily entitled to say, to my employer, that I have a religiously-based objection to being forced to recognize and respect my Jewish colleagues' religious practice, by picking up their slack? Should I be entitled to simply say "no" to participating in this accommodation?

[Josh R]

If you are sincere in your religious objection, I'm guessing the boss would have to find a way to accommodate both your Jewish colleagues and you (unless doing so meets the new standard of "undue hardship" established in Groff v. DeJoy). If your objection is not religiously-based, you lose.

[SimonP]

I hate stupid comments like this; they cause an actual mental pain. In just a short paragraph, you manage to (i) embrace an absurd outcome, (ii) fight the hypothetical, and (iii) completely miss the point of my comment.

I am not asking for some calculation of the correct legal outcome under existing doctrine. I am prompting Goober, upthread, to reconsider the validity of his reasoning by flipping the valences of the scenario, so as to avoid the too-easy triggering of his transphobic instinct.

[Josh R]

Brett may or may not agree with you the result is absurd. I don't think it is.

[John F. Carr]

More from Bloomberg Law. Two politicial philosophies were on display in interviews with the nominating committee to recommend candidates for the Florida Supreme Court. Not left-right. The candidates are all Federalist Society members. But some call for a "bloodthirsty" approach to liberal precedents while others would practice judicial "humility".

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/florida-justice-hunt-weighs-bloodthirsty-originalist-options
https://apple.news/ApejIaBkRTtuWekm6G6M2LQ

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/2001374118219018454?s=20

“Jews are only safe when there is mass immigration into white countries…”

That sure explains alot of what we see with our own eyes.

[John 4]

I’d be surprised if there is even a single Jewish person in your trailer park. Stop smoking meth and reading Twitter.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

How about smoking marijuana and reading Bluesky?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

France has granted citizenship to Hollywood star George Clooney and his wife, the human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, according to government decrees issued over the weekend.

George Clooney is retaining his American citizenship, which is permitted by France. He cites the quietude of their existence there, including not being bothered by paparazzi [is there a French term?].

In his latest film, Noah Baumbach’s “Jay Kelly,” Mr. Clooney plays an aging American film star who, in an attempt to rediscover himself, takes a train journey from Paris to Tuscany in Italy.

[NYT article, but for those who don't like the NYT, the news has been reported elsewhere.]

Meanwhile, Mamdani Will Be Sworn In at an Abandoned Subway Station Beneath City Hall.

Per local law, the oath-taking for a city office will require the payment of a $9 fee. He will pay it by collecting cans, using the exercise to meet with everyday New Yorkers.

(Most of that is true. Not sure about the last part.)

[Bob from Ohio]

All the more reason to sanction Mrs. Clooney for her role in the ICC campaign against Israel.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes - Israel - The only country in the ME that is an actual democracy in both name and reality.
The only country in the ME that does not practice apartheid.

For those going to rebut those statements, put forth an example of a ME country that doesnt effectively practice apartheid. Put forth an example of a ME country that is an actual democracy in both name, and reality.

[hobie]

The thing about Mamdani - as it is/was with Biden or Buttigieg - is that the softer and kinder they behave, the more it seems to infuriate MAGA. It's like they're holding up a mirror that shows the ugliness of MAGA.

Let's take Kamala. Pretend she was just a stranger you knew nothing about. All you had to go on was the joy, the smiling and the laughter. That alone - for over a year - caused the teeth to grind in paroxysms of rage.

[ThePublius]

You're mistaken. It's that Kamala is an idiot who slept her way to the top, and Mamdani is an avowed socialist. Probably communist. Not good for our country, let alone NYC.

[Sarcastr0]

Kamala is an idiot who slept her way to the top

You suck shit at civility.

[Michael P]

... reminding us that the reason the left says "every accusation is a confession" is because it's true for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you find that I'm always whining about civility?

No - I don't come here for that. I'm pointing out TP's hypocricy.

[Michael P]

For some very frequent value of "always", yes. Have you not noticed how often you get mocked for acting like you're the tone police?

It's also hilarious that you complain about anyone else's hypocrisy after I pointed out your hypocrisy in saying he "suck[s] shit at civility". You brilliantly illustrated my observation.

[Sarcastr0]

When I point to bad comments, it's not because they're uncivil.

Empty, perhaps. Inconsistent, often. Delusional, increasingly. Hypocritical, it has to be pretty bad, since I think that's a lesser Internet sin.

As I said, I don't come here for civility. That'd be asking for something to get mad at.

[Michael P]

When I point to bad comments, it's not because they're uncivil.

Empty, perhaps. Inconsistent, often. Delusional, increasingly. Hypocritical, it has to be pretty bad, since I think that's a lesser Internet sin.

So how should we interpret a comment where your contribution is precisely this?

You suck shit at civility.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pointing out TP's hypocricy.

You got a reading problem or something?

[Michael P]

Your comment didn't contain any hint that the point was hypocrisy rather than civility. Beyond that, there's nothing hypocritical, especially about civility, in pointing out that someone advanced their career significantly by sleeping with a benefactor. But I guess we're supposed to read your mind?

In contrast, it is uncivil to jump in out of the blue with a profane accusation.

[Sarcastr0]

Great point, except for the comment I quoted that said that was my point.

I don't expect you to read my mind, I do expect you to read the posts you reply to.

[Michael P]

You pointed to an implausible explanation after the fact to explain how we should interpret your earlier comment. So you want us to use our crystal balls, not read your mind?

You're just digging that hole deeper.

[Malika la Maize]

“Your comment didn't contain any hint that the point was hypocrisy rather than civility.”

Except the context that for a long time here Pubes has been called out for clutching civility pearls (but only when people he disagrees with says something uncivil) while engaging in similar behavior.

[ThePublius]

I'm not being uncivil to anyone here, I'm expressing my view of a public figure. Get over it!

[Malika la Maize]

Your uncivil view.

[David Nieporent]

... reminding us that the reason the left says "every accusation is a confession" is because it's true for them.

Um, but you're the one who just did that. (And yes, now I just did. Turtles all the way down.)

[ThePublius]

"Kamala is an idiot who slept her way to the top

You suck shit at civility."

You're funny. "Civility" in the context of VC is to be civil towards other commenters. Commenting on a public figure is another thing altogether. And, you are the one who crossed the civility line with your quote, above. Talk about lack of self awareness!

I don't see you objecting on civility grounds to the aweful things people say about Trump. One-sided much?

[Sarcastr0]

That is not what civility means.

Lying about a famous woman to call her a slut is uncivil.

If someone says Trump slept his way to the top, we can talk. In the meantime, you're a sexist pig.

[ThePublius]

That's not what civility means in the context of this forum, Sarc. It means civility towards other commenters. Public figures are fair game. Where are your complaints about disparaging remarks about Trump, hmmmm?

And I'm not a sexist pig. And I'm not lying about her. And it doesn't matter if she's famous. She indeed has slept her way to the top, just do some research on her career. Ever hear of Willie Brown?

Your only retort is to call me a liar and sexist. O.K., waiting on racist. Then you'll have the full house of typical leftist responses.

[Malika la Maize]

That's not what civility means in the context of this forum,

What a charmingly qualified concept of it!

[ThePublius]

Let's set a flag here, and note how Sarc responds the next time loki or SRG or hobie or one of his other cohort says some disgustingly disparaging thing about Trump, about civility. Then talk to me about hypocrisy.

Got that Sarc?

(Oh, and Sarc, it's 'hypocrisy,' not 'hypocricy,' as you spell it.)

[SRG2]

FWIW no-one here is as uncivil about Trump as Trump is about other people.

[David Nieporent]

You're funny. "Civility" in the context of VC is to be civil towards other commenters. Commenting on a public figure is another thing altogether.

I agree… but that still doesn't justify lying about them.

[hobie]

"It's that Kamala is an idiot who slept her way to the top"

Like I said, pretend you knew nothing about her...

[ThePublius]

O.K., as a thought experiment. I think I would I would find her inappropriate laughter and word salads off-putting.

[Michael P]

I think he wants you to imagine what could be, unburdened by what has been. Even when we are talking about a has-been.

[SimonP]

Which demonstrates the point. Why don't you like her, as a person? "She laughs funny and kind of rambles." Paroxysms of rage, even so.

Like - put me in a room with a continent Trump, where we can talk as equals. I can imagine him being affable and charming enough - I've seen him in that mode, when he's in a good enough mood. Maybe not someone I want to try to engage in a serious discussion about anything that's happened since the 1980s, but he can crack jokes, be self-deprecating.

You know, Biden supporters in 2024 found themselves, for a time, in the difficult position of defending his record and ability to serve as president even while his public appearances were... not encouraging. I don't know that MAGA types yet recognize how deep into that same trap they've gotten themselves. I think a good deal of the greed, corruption, and cruelty we're seeing out of the Trump administration - which all of you love and celebrate as governance - is not coming from Trump himself but from the people who have glommed onto him. He is letting people like RFK, Musk, Vought, Miller, etc., do their own thing. Meanwhile, he's scribbling sketches of his ballroom on a table napkin at the kid's table, when he's not being rolled out to run down his "greatest hits" to the tunes of the Village People.

What are you all going to do, when the party establishment tells you that your new beau is going to be that fat-faced couchfucker? Are you going to fall for him, like you have for Trump?

[Michael P]

The thought experiment was to pretend that we know nothing about her, and so judge her from the first impressions of new behavior. If you want some other thought experiment, say so, but you should file your objection with hobie for insisting on it rather than ThePublius for accommodating hobie.

[SimonP]

Shut the fuck up, moron.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If she were a stranger I knew nothing about, I would probably use her last name, at least, if I used the last name of other strangers.

[Michael P]

If she were a stranger I knew nothing about, [....]

If you know nothing about the Democrats' 2024 presidential nominee, you might want to get out more.

That said, I agree that it's generally better to use Harris's last name when referring to her in this kind of context. Unlike with the Clintons, there's no real risk of ambiguity about who "Harris" refers to as a national candidate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, since their idea of being softer and kinder towards Paul is to rob Peter, why wouldn't we react that way?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh no they've lost Brett's vote.

[hobie]

Brett don't buy into anything unless its delivered with the MAGA mean mug.

[Commenter_XY]

Kamala cannot speak. The inability to speak clearly and coherently is not a desirable trait in a President.

[David Nieporent]

The inability to speak clearly and coherently is not a desirable trait in a President.

Um, you love Trump.

[John 4]

Are any Republicans sleeping with adults? Sweet Jesus!

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/23/matt-gaetz-sex-drug-report-house-ethics.html

[Michael P]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124155/

Murder rates would be up to five times higher than they are but for medical developments over the past 40 years.

According to new research, doctors are saving the lives of thousands of victims of attack who four decades ago would have died and become murder statistics.

There's room to debate the exact ratio, but I think the general fact is indisputable, and the lowest credible estimate would make current violence worse than general historical levels ("general" excluding anomalous peaks).

[jb]

That's interesting, but is confusing because other types of violent crime like assault have also declined dramatically. In fact, if you look at something like fatal vs nonfatal firearm attacks, the ratio of firearm homicides to non-fatal firearm assaults has actually increased. I can't come up with any hypothesis that explains both sets of numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

First, why are you linking to a 2002 article?

Second, murders, thanks to medical science, should have become assaults or intended murders.

And yet...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

You take a paper about murder and then talk about 'current violence.' Not the same thing!

All in all, this seems dodgy enough from a legit seeming author that I'm interested! Will see if I can track down the paper.

[Armchair]

"Second, murders, thanks to medical science, should have become assaults or intended murders."

Unless the police chiefs deliberately decided to miscategorize the crimes.

That would NEVER happen.

[Sarcastr0]

Found the paper: Murder & Medicine: The Lethality of Criminal Assault 1960-1999

It's well received, but as a hypothesis and important modality to consider, for exactly the reasons jb pointed out.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/homicide-and-medical-science-there-relationship
"The study found no support for the argument that increases in the technology and resources of medical science over the past 30 years had decreased crime-related deaths (homicides) when aggravated assaults were distinguished as attempted homicide from the Canadian offense of aggravated assault. One explanation for medical science's lack of impact on the homicide rate is that homicide victims have died or are irreversibly near death when they contact medical services."

For a more up-to-date analysis, see: Constant Lethality of Gunshot Injuries From Firearm Assault: United States, 2003-2012
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28640677/

"Conclusions: With reasonable adjustments, the trend in nonfatal injuries from interpersonal firearms assault tracks the flat trend in firearms homicides, suggesting that there was no increase in firearms violence during this period. The case-fatality rate did not change, and trauma care improvements did not influence the firearms homicide trend."

[hobie]

Murder just isn't as satisfying when you can't even finish the victim off Gulf-of-America-Style.

[Armchair]

"Earlier this month, Fulton County admitted that approximately 315,000 early votes from the 2020 election were illegally certified but were nonetheless still included in the final results of that election.

The admission came during a Dec. 9 hearing before the Georgia State Election Board (SEB) stemming from a challenge filed by David Cross, a local election integrity activist. Cross filed a challenge with the SEB in March 2022. Cross alleged that Fulton County violated Georgia election rules in the handling of advanced voting ahead of the November 2020 election, counting hundreds of thousands of votes even though polling workers failed to sign off on the vote tabulation “tapes” critical to the certification process.

And Fulton County admitted to it.

Ann Brumbaugh, attorney for the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, told the SEB in the hearing that while she has “not seen the tapes” herself, the county does “not dispute that the tapes were not signed.” Brumbaugh continued, “It was a violation of the rule. We, since 2020, again, we have new leadership and a new building and a new board and a new standard operating procedures. And since then the training has been enhanced. … But … we don’t dispute the allegation from the 2020 election.”

Georgia’s Secretary of State Office investigated the alleged failure to sign tabulation tapes and “substantiated” the findings that Fulton County “violated Official Election Record Document Processes when it was discovered that thirty-six (36) out of thirty-seven (37) Advanced Voting Precincts in Fulton County, Georgia failed to sign the Tabulation Tapes as required [by SEB rules],” according to a 2024 investigation summary. In addition to probing the unsigned tabulation tapes, the investigation also found that officials at 32 polling sites failed to verify their zero tapes."

https://thefederalist.com/2025/12/17/fulton-county-we-dont-dispute-315000-votes-lacking-poll-workers-signatures-were-counted-in-2020/

What's....315,000 votes that weren't properly certified...

"If there is no record of whether the tabulator was set at zero at the start of polling, there is no way of telling whether ballots from a previous election (or ballots from a test run) were left on the memory card and might later be counted. Notably, this happened in Montana, where officials discovered more votes than were cast and believe the votes were leftover sample data that had not been cleared.

“These signed tapes are the sole legal certification that the reported totals are authentic,” Cross told the SEB at the Dec. 9 hearing. “Fulton County produced zero signed tabulator tapes in early voting.”"

Oh....

[jb]

Hmm. If only there weren't already a discussion of this exact topic upthread. Or on several other open threads for that matter.

[Armchair]

"Nothing to see here. Move along. Don't look at the vote totals too carefully."

[jb]

More like: "why didn't you just copy and paste this above?" It's not like you're adding any new information here. This is the exact same story that has been discussed and nauseum.

While we're at it, though, looking at the vote totals is a great idea and exactly why we know this bit of missed administrativia had no bearing on the outcome.

[Armchair]

Sure. Why don't you do that math. What's 315,000 votes for the Georgia election?

[jb]

Lucky for you, they already did the math in both the initial reconciliation report and in the hand recount of all the ballots.

Here's the recount results by county:

https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/county-summary-data.pdf

As you can see, the hand recount results are almost identical to the originally reported results nearly everywhere, including Fulton County. The notable example was Floyd County, which seems to have missed 6% of the ballots the first time around! Of course, Floyd County went almost 3:1 for Trump, so no one is calling attention to that particular anomaly.

[Armchair]

And those recounts...how do you know that they're real? Or ballots from a test run? If they were never certified?

[jb]

You should maybe familiarize yourself with what the signed tapes are supposed to do because right now it's quite clear you have no idea that you're talking about.

[hobie]

Whoever is running the state of Georgia needs to be investigated. Get them Cyber Ninjas on it!

[Sarcastr0]

Riva posted this 3 days ago.
ThePublius posted it a week ago.

You're late to the game again!

[ducksalad]

Remember way back in 2002, when there was a huge media effort by the neocons (who back then had both Republicans and Democrats) to keep publishing news and op-eds and press releases that somehow managed to use "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same paragraph. Over and over again.

The outlets who liked to think of themselves as respectable were (mostly) careful never to explicitly claim Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. They just wanted to make sure that every time you heard about one, you were reminded of the other, so that the two things went together in your mind.

What we've got here is a concerted campaign to get the words "illegal" and "votes" together in the same news item, over and over again.

Note that there is no explicit claim here that anyone illegally voted. The Federalist and its, um, distributors would not stoop to making such a claim! They are real journalists and activists! They just want words like "illegal" and "uncertified" to pop into your head whenever you think about voting and elections.

They want to build a general feeling that we have to do something. And when the time is ripe, maybe they will propose to do something.

[Armchair]

A woman who moved to Georgia from the Bahamas 30 years ago and is not a citizen admitted during a Dec. 9 State Election Board (SEB) hearing that she has voted multiple times. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

Clayton County resident Melanie Pickett is a Bahamian native but has lived in the Peach State for approximately 30 years.

According to Pickett, she does not “know” “how it happened.”

https://www.conservativereview.com/noncitizen-admits-to-voting-multiple-times-in-georgia-elections-2674822873.html

[Sarcastr0]

And now this is the stuff you're reduced to trying to jump up into a crisis.

Pathetic.

[ducksalad]

To be fair, I sort of challenged him on actual illegal voting and he was responding to me. It is a legitimate story and on point.

Of course I deny that (a) this makes the 2020 election illegitimate, or (b) you can extrapolate from 20 cases to the 20,000+ needed to change just the Georgia result, or (c) that is has anything at all to do with whether or not an election worker signed the tapes, presumably the tapes with her votes were signed, or (d) we should take any nonsense suggestion from XY and ThePublius that hundreds of thousands of citizens should have their indisputably valid votes tossed out to make sure not one single illegal vote gets through.

But still, Armchair points out something that really did happen and shouldn't have, and I'd support reasonable and proportionate changes to make such things less likely.

[ducksalad]

OK, this is a real case of illegal voting. Congratulations. Now one can take action:

1. Find another 300,000 in the right states (because not all illegal votes will be for Biden, and Georgia would not be enough) and you can make the purely academic case that the 2020 election was incorrect. Purely academic since the whole 2021-2025 term is already over and none of our time machines are big enough to cover the whole USA and redo those years.

2. Explain how Ms. Pickett's illegal voting was or was not affected by whether some election worker signed off on some tapes. Because I'm still not seeing how the signature is relevant to illegal voting, even a little bit.

3. If it makes you feel better suggest an appropriate penalty for Ms. Pickett. If it's as it appears I can't say a felony conviction and sentence of probation would be too harsh. As you know I'm not big deportation fan but I concede she's opened herself up for that.

4. We might actually agree on one action here. She claims to not know what happened but to me it's obvious that it started with automatic voter registration. Voter registration should always be a voluntary action initiated without prompting and requiring a series of affirmative steps by the voter. It should never be a default that can happen through passive inattention, or something that's so easy one can do it accidentally by careless box checking.

[John F. Carr]

Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he was executed on this day in 2006.

A few days later President Bush remarked:

I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had gone on in a more dignified way. But, nevertheless, he was given justice. The thousands of people he killed were not.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/saddam-s-execution-could-have-been-more-dignified-bush-1.661744

[David Nieporent]

"Earlier this month, Fulton County admitted that approximately 315,000 early votes from the 2020 election were illegally certified but were nonetheless still included in the final results of that election.

Still remains a complete and utter lie. Fulton County did not admit that a single vote was "illegally certified," because not only were no votes illegally certified, but no votes were legally certified either. That's not a thing.

"If there is no record of whether the tabulator was set at zero at the start of polling, there is no way of telling whether ballots from a previous election (or ballots from a test run) were left on the memory card and might later be counted.

Sigh. Yes, there is, dipshit: count the fucking ballots. Which they did.

Notably, this happened in Montana, where officials discovered more votes than were cast and believe the votes were leftover sample data that had not been cleared.

And, notably, nobody had a tantrum and called the thing a fraud. They just saw the error and counted the ballots, thus eliminating the problem.

[jb]

The Montana situation is instructive since it was so much worse. They actually announced the wrong winner initially! But then they quickly realized something was wrong, fixed the mistake, and everybody moved on with their lives.

Whereas in Georgia it's clear to anyone actually trying to understand what happened that a procedural ever was made, but that it had no effect on the tabulation. But since this allows the MAGAs to keep making noises about the 2020 election, we've got to have literally every single regular poster here make their own attempt to repost the exact same regurgitated story over and over again.

[Armchair]

-

[DDHarriman]

What are the rules of evidence in courtrooms for chain of custody violations?

[David Nieporent]

It depends on the specific set of circumstances, but problems with chain of custody generally go to weight, not admissibility. But — and you're making an obvious coy reference to the Fulton County situation — nothing about the Fulton County thing has anything at all to do with chain of custody. You fundamentally misunderstand either what chain of custody is or what happened in Fulton County.

[SRG2]

In all likelihood, one of the blogs that DDHarriman gets his information from made some conspiracy nut claim about chain of custody and he's merely repeating it.

[loki13]

Unsealed-

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/241/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/

[Michael P]

Politico's senior legal affairs correspondent got massively ratio'ed for a legally ignorant Xeet implying that Somali fraudsters might start shooting at people for knocking on the door of a suspicious business. Come for the journalistic nonfeasance in trying to ignore the story, stay for posers showing that Ben Rhodes was right about the legacy media.

https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/2005863545360068709

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Douglas once (in)famously argued "trees should have standing" or something. Really, he was interested in environmentalists having the ability to have standing for nature.

(A taste: "Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents, and which are threatened with destruction.")

What about non-human animals having standing on their own? A few cases were brought to try to obtain habeas relief (e.g., Happy the Elephant*). Others think bigger. For instance, "Animals and the Constitution" (helpfully citing multiple constitutions worldwide).

https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2025/06/animals-and-constitution-towards-sentience-based-constitutionalism

Another book ("Wildlife as Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights") uses a somewhat different approach.

https://www.kmbradshaw.com/

==

Note: Monica Miller, the young advocate opposing the governmental endorsement of the WWI peace cross in a Supreme Court case, was also involved there.

[Armchair]

New data suggests illegal immigrants commit crimes at 3 times the rate of normal citizens.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/28/opinion/new-data-reveals-horrific-truth-about-illegal-immigrant-crime/

Again, not surprising in hindsight. What the pro-open borders crowd like to rave about is immigrants committing crimes at a lower rate than native born citizens. But...they're mixing legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

See, we should EXPECT legal immigrants to commit crimes at a lower rate than native born citizens. Because we're selecting for them. One of the major correlations to committing criminal acts in the future is having committed criminal acts in the past. And with legal immigrants....we largely don't let those people in who have criminal histories. Surprise! So legal immigrants...less likely to commit crimes.

But illegal immigrants bypass that selection criteria. (In fact, one might argue due to the very nature of their chosen route of entry, it selects for people more prone to criminal behavior). But if you mix the group of people you've selected for not having criminal histories with illegal immigrants, you can hide the criminal element.

[Sarcastr0]

Bigots do fall for some stupid shit to justify their bigotry.

This opinion piece claims illegals are overrepresented in the prisoner population.

That's not relevant to illegal criminality in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

[Armchair]

I would argue that illegals in the prisoner population are extremely relevant to illegal criminal activity in general.

[Absaroka]

Can you flesh that out in more detail?

If men make up 50% of the population, but convicted murderers are 97% male (I'm just making these numbers up), you don't think that datum supports the proposition that males have a greater propensity for murder than females?

I mean, there could be other explanations - women are smarter and commit as many murders without getting caught, or are more convincing liars at their trials, etc, etc. And the hoofbeats you hear might indeed be zebras, but horses seem like a better bet without some evidence of zebras.

[SimonP]

It's interesting to me that you choose to intuition-pump along the axis of gender, rather than race. Why is it "men murder more" that you want to suggest, as opposed to "Blacks deal more drugs"? Is it because, in the example of race, confounding factors for your preferred inference become more obvious?

In any event, I will take your hypothetical in the opposite direction than intended. Suppose it were true that the convicted murderer population tells us something about men's propensity to commit homicide. What do we do with that information? Do we conclude that men should have less access to firearms? Do we track their movements and require them to stick to defined geographical areas?

Armchair is merely a MAGA partisan trying to attack a talking point, but your defense of his point helps to illustrate its lack of relevance to policy.

[ducksalad]

Some follow up on XY's "port facility":

Two members of Venezuela’s Wayuu indigenous community in the area told NBC News that they witnessed an unexplained explosion on Dec. 18 that destroyed a hut that possibly was used for storage.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/south-america/eyewitnesses-describe-mysterious-explosion-northwest-venezuela-rcna251606

It's like someone wanted to do the tiniest possible thing that could get the "land operations" box checked off. Can't tell if it was some underling trying to appease Rubio/Trump demands to do something, or an attempt to goad Maduro, who appears to be declining the bait.

[SimonP]

It's akin to bombing a field in the wrong part of Nigeria, in order to fight ISIS.

Trump doesn't want a war. He wants a show of force. Corrupt and autocratic leaders are happy to accommodate, if they can play it off for their own domestic constituencies.