Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[bloocow2]

So, is the United States at war with Venezuela now?

[Kazinski]

No.

No troops in the country, calm in the streets.

As long as the interim Government holds free and fair elections then out work there is done.

[bloocow2]

So, you bomb a country and abduct their president, and this is... not a declaration of war?

If Russia bombed the White House and kidnapped Trump, would you consider that a declaration of war?

Or like, if China just decided on a whim to abduct the Taiwanese leader and replace them with a more-compliant toady, would that be okay?

[Kazinski]

No, it is an act of war, but it takes more than an act of war to actually make a war.

[Kazinski]

Here is an official Statement of the new President of Venezuela:

A message from Venezuela to the world, and to the United States:

Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to peace and peaceful coexistence. Our country aspires to live without external threats, in an environment of respect and international cooperation. We believe that global peace is built by first guaranteeing peace within each nation.

We prioritise moving towards balanced and respectful international relations between the United States and Venezuela, and between Venezuela and other countries in the region, premised on sovereign equality and non-interference. These principles guide our diplomacy with the rest of the world.

We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.

President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. This has always been President Nicolás Maduro’s message, and it is the message of all of Venezuela right now. This is the Venezuela I believe in and have dedicated my life to. I dream of a Venezuela where all good Venezuelans can come together.

Venezuela has the right to peace, development, sovereignty and a future.

Delcy Rodríguez
Acting President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

That doesn't seem like Venezuela thinks its a war either.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
Color me skeptical. If I put you in front of the camera, and I have a gun point at your child's head; I can get you to say pretty much anything I want. Hell; probably if I just point my gun at your own head.

Time will tell, of course. The only true idiots currently in America are the ones (on both sides) who know in advance that it will be a raging success or a horrific failure. [Of course there are those who think it will succeed on some level(s), but it was still a very bad policy decision, still sets a dreadful precedent, etc..]

[Kazinski]

But we know there isn't a literal gun to her head, in any case I don't care what she wants.

Seems more likely she's trying to figure out how to make this gig permanent than she's being coerced into betraying her beloved leader.

I don't trust her either way, we should keep the pressure, and the oil embargo on until there are free and fair elections, and then respect their verdict.

[Brett Bellmore]

She's a lot closer to having a literal gun to her head than you're making the situation out to be; The guy with the gun might be in a US army barrack, not in the room with her, but he exists.

[bloocow2]

The sheer arrogance of thinking "oh but this time it will all work out the way we want it to" is common to every superpower, to be fair. And it's not as if you guys haven't secretly deposed multiple leaders before (though at least then you were better at not saying the quiet part out loud, as your pro-peace, anti-interventionist current administration is doing).

But your global dominance is not going to last forever. It will fall apart at some point, as every major power in human history has fallen apart. And when you're counting on international precedent to save you from the jackals, people are going to remember this sort of thing.

Or, hell, look towards the near future. When Democrats eventually take the White House, look at, say, the right-wing populist in charge of Argentina, and think "hmmmm... what if... someone else were in charge?", what will people here say in response? Turfing leaders you don't like is all the rage!

[DDHarriman]

What reaction were you hoping for with that response?

[Frank Drackman]

Shouldn't you worry about where your Ayatollahs are going to be soon?

[hobie]

Bloocow, your talking to a bunch of people who are scared of everything: Libs, brownies, gays, God, their own mortality, crime, medicine, societal collapse etc. Everything is an existential threat including poor Venezuela. The allure of 'safety' drives them to guns, bibles, gold, food rations, Lifelock, and the dissolution of all principles including formerly-rock-solid stances on foreign interventions. There are no permanent principles you can appeal to, Bloocow.

[John 4]

Scared, ignorant, non-inquisitive. The hallmarks of a good MAGAt.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And when you're counting on international precedent to save you from the jackals"

Rome lasted 1600 years including, as you should, the Byzantine Empire. No reason we cannot.

No one intelligent depends on "international precedent" anyways.

[Magister]

Bob from Ohio's ambition for a 1600 year Reich seems to be a bit of a reach. Looking good for a mad emperor, though.

[bernard11]

So it would be OK if DC were sacked, and Seattle became the capital?

It wasn't just a peaceful reorganization, you know.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Some guy somewhere said:
"Let's go after the drug lords where they LIVE! With an international strike force. NO safe haven for narco-terrorists".

He didn't really believe in the Monroe Doctrine but he sure wanted to get those narco-terrorists, yeah boy!

[hobie]

And I'm one of them people that advocated for foreign strikes on narco-terrorist labs. The problem is, the narco-terrorists are all in Mexico.

It used to be Columbia that ran the show and the Mexicans were the mules. Now it's the other way around.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Do you hear that, fellas?
I guess we got it wrong.
Apparently, there's no narco-terrorists in Venezuela.
I guess we owe Maduro an apology.

[hobie]

Kinda like the WMD, eh? Still waiting to see some.

[Estragon]

On a completely separate note, I was wondering if we’d be hearing from you with the starlink kerfuffle!

[GreenLanternCorps]

You do realize that Nicholas Maduro was not recognized as the lawful President of Venezuela, don’t you? So the US brought a private citizen forcibly back to the US to face justice. There is ample precedent for this.

[Josh R]

As long as the interim Government holds free and fair elections then out work there is done.

Are you really that ignorant? Trump has explicitly said, over and over again, it was about the oil. His threats against Colombia, Mexico and Greenland aren't about elections either.

[Commenter_XY]

We are not (at war).

If Congress declares it, we'll be at war. Congress isn't declaring diddly.

There doesn't seem much of an appetite within VEN to invade TX or sink an aircraft carrier in response to the snatch and grab of Maduro (a military facilitator and protector of transnational drug dealers). Quite the opposite, in fact. Oil is VEN's ticket out of poverty, and US oil companies have the expertise to rapidly fix and replace infrastructure. VEN has nothing to lose (unless you count losing a fugitive from justice a great loss). VEN doesn't want war, they want wealth; the US can help.

[SRG2]

We are not (at war).

If Congress declares it, we'll be at war. Congress isn't declaring diddly.

One should distinguish between something being factually true and constitutionally true. If the US mounted a full invasion of Venezuela but without Congressional approval, it would be factually true that the US was at war but there would always be idiots to argue that as Congress hadn't declared war, the US was not at war.

An act of war in and of itself does not mean that a country is at war with the attacked country. It does mean that the attacked country can choose to go to war against the attacker using that act as justification and can legitimately point to the act of war as the beginning of the war - and hence the original attacker started it,

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An "act of war" and "state of war" can exist without congressional declaration. Congressional action has some legal implications.

We saw this in the early years of the Civil War. The Supreme Court upheld a blockade before Congress acted, for instance.

Anyway, the "concerns" and talk of impeachment that we started with now has transmitted to a different tone.

[hobie]

"and US oil companies have the expertise to rapidly fix and replace infrastructure."

Heh...haha...HAHAHAHA! Oh no we fucking don't!

Dear AI, how long does it take to begin production in an offshore oil field?

"Bringing an offshore oil field to production typically takes 4 to 10 years"

Yeah, if you're lucky.

So, as usual, we'll be propping up this country with treasure for the next decade.

[Kazinski]

Its certainly not an overnight process Hobie, but of course their task is not to bring existing wells on line, but to rejuvenate existing wells by steam or perhaps CO2 injection.

And contrary to what you said a day or so ago, Venezuela's oil is not mainly offshore, although some of it is below lake Maricaibo. And their Orinoco Heavy Oil belt is along the Orinoco River.

[hobie]

Chevron operates its wells. The rest are operated by Rosneft, ENI, Total, Repsol and China CNPC. Unless you plan on stealing all these companies' infrastructure - which would make you the same as what you accused Venezuela of doing - then you start from scratch like everyone else:

Research - years
Put in your bids - years
Build and ship your platforms (or jack-ups for land) - years
Start extraction

Simples!

[Kazinski]

Operated by?

Who owns them?

And it should be legal for Venezuela to use eminent Domain to buy the infrastructure at fair market value. Which of course is not the cost of the investment, but worth of the asset before retrofitting it, or worth of the asset after retrofitting it - cost of rehabilitating it.

[John F. Carr]

No de jure war because neither Congress nor Venezuela declared one. No de facto war because the shooting has stopped. No War Powers Act problems because the shooting has stopped. For the ninth time Trump ended a conflict. Makes me want to play the Eagles' "Peaceful Easy Feeling."

[jimc5499]

Especially if they go back to the contracts that Venezuela had before the Government seized oil production.

[Reallynotbob]

"Rapidly fix and replace infrastructure"

I have read that is unlikely to be the case. More like $100 billion over 10 years. The time involved magnifies the risk for companies even more than the enormous monetary requirement.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Trumps-Venezuela-Oil-Dream-Meets-a-100-Billion-Reality-Check.html

[Commenter_XY]

If you want the pay, you have to play. And find ways to accelerate breakeven.

[not guilty]

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reportedly has said that the department has initiated proceedings to demote Senator Mark Kelly from a retired Navy captain to a lower rank, with a corresponding reduction in pay, in response to his video along with other members of Congress reminding troops that they are not required to obey illegal orders. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/hegseth-kelly-punish-video-00710555

This is an outrage, which likely offends First Amendment guaranties. Senator Kelly responded online:

Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution – including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would attack me for doing exactly that.

My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.

Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.

If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it. I will fight this with everything I’ve got — not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.

https://x.com/SenMarkKelly/status/2008215189275963870

The Supreme Court has opined in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006):

Official reprisal for protected speech “offends the Constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right,” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, n.10 (1998), and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out, id., at 592; see also Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972) (noting that the government may not punish a person or deprive him of a benefit on the basis of his “constitutionally protected speech”). Some official actions adverse to such a speaker might well be unexceptionable if taken on other grounds, but when nonretaliatory grounds are in fact insufficient to provoke the adverse consequences, we have held that retaliation is subject to recovery as the but-for cause of official action offending the Constitution. See Crawford-El, supra, at 593; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–284 (1977) (adverse action against government employee cannot be taken if it is in response to the employee’s “exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms”). When the vengeful officer is federal, he is subject to an action for damages on the authority of Bivens [v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388,] 397 [(1971).]

If Senator Kelly were not

[not guilty]

If Senator Kelly were not a military retiree, there is no question that what he said in the subject video is First Amendment protected. First Amendment protections are relaxed in the military context, at least as to active duty personnel, and I am unaware of any SCOTUS decision addressing the First Amendment rights of military retirees to speak out on matters of public concern.

The Supreme Court has recognized that, as to active duty personnel, the First Amendment can be applied differently in the military context because of its distinctive character and purpose. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974). There the Court upheld Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 933 and 934) against First Amendment facial attack. The speech in question there was that of Captain Howard Levy, a physician who made several public statements to enlisted personnel at the post including the following:

"The United States is wrong in being involved in the Viet Nam War. I would refuse to go to Viet Nam if ordered to do so. I don't see why any colored soldier would go to Viet Nam: they should refuse to go to Viet Nam, and, if sent, should refuse to fight because they are discriminated against and denied their freedom in the United States, and they are sacrificed and discriminated against in Viet Nam by being given all the hazardous duty and they are suffering the majority of casualties. If I were a colored soldier, I would refuse to go to Viet Nam, and if I were a colored soldier and were sent, I would refuse to fight. Special Forces personnel are liars and thieves and killers of peasants and murderers of women and children."

417 U.S. at 736-737.

On review of a habeas corpus challenge to Levy's court martial, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Articles 133 and 134 are void for vagueness. 478 F.2d 772 (CA3 1973). The Supreme Court reversed, opining:

Appellee urges that both Art. 133 and Art. 134 (the general article) are "void for vagueness" under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. We have recently said of the vagueness doctrine:

"The doctrine incorporates notions of fair notice or warning. Moreover, it requires legislatures to set reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent 'arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' Where a statute's literal scope, unaided by a narrowing state court interpretation, is capable of reaching expression sheltered by the First Amendment, the doctrine demands a greater degree of specificity than in other contexts."

Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 415 U.S. 572-573 (1974). Each of these articles has been construed by the United States Court of Military Appeals or by other military authorities in such a manner as to at least partially narrow its otherwise broad scope.

The United States Court of Military Appeals has stated that Art. 134 must be judged "not in vacuo, but in the context in which the years have placed it," United States v. Frantz, 2 U.S.C.M.A. 161, 163, 7 C.M.R. 37, 39 (1953). Article 134 does not make "every irregular, mischievous, or improper act a court-martial offense," United States v. Sadinsky, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 563, 565, 34 C.M.R. 343, 345 (1964), but its reach is limited to conduct that is "directly and palpably -- as distinguished from indirectly and remotely -- prejudicial to good order and discipline.'" Ibid.; United States v. Holiday, 4 U.S.C.M.A. 454, 456, 16 C.M.R. 28, 30 (1954). It applies only to calls for active opposition to the military policy of the United States, United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 564, 45 C.M.R. 338 (1972), and does not reach all "[d]isagreement with, or objection to, a policy of the Government." United States v. Harvey, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 539, 544, 42 C.M.R. 141, 146 (1971).
417 U.S. at 752-753 [italics in original; boldface added].

In Contrast to Captain Levy's incendiary remarks, here can be no good faith argument that Senator Kelly's merely reminding military personnel that they are not required to obey illegal orders -- a concept that is drilled into every recruit at basic training -- is directly and palpably -- as distinguished from indirectly and remotely -- prejudicial to good order and discipline. The content of the video is fully protected under the First Amendment.

[not guilty]

My editing the above comment threw off the indents. The corrected comment is:

If Senator Kelly were not a military retiree, there is no question that what he said in the subject video is First Amendment protected. First Amendment protections are relaxed in the military context, at least as to active duty personnel, and I am unaware of any SCOTUS decision addressing the First Amendment rights of military retirees to speak out on matters of public concern.

The Supreme Court has recognized that, as to active duty personnel, the First Amendment can be applied differently in the military context because of its distinctive character and purpose. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974). There the Court upheld Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 933 and 934) against First Amendment facial attack. The speech in question there was that of Captain Howard Levy, a physician who made several public statements to enlisted personnel at the post including the following:

"The United States is wrong in being involved in the Viet Nam War. I would refuse to go to Viet Nam if ordered to do so. I don't see why any colored soldier would go to Viet Nam: they should refuse to go to Viet Nam, and, if sent, should refuse to fight because they are discriminated against and denied their freedom in the United States, and they are sacrificed and discriminated against in Viet Nam by being given all the hazardous duty and they are suffering the majority of casualties. If I were a colored soldier, I would refuse to go to Viet Nam, and if I were a colored soldier and were sent, I would refuse to fight. Special Forces personnel are liars and thieves and killers of peasants and murderers of women and children."

417 U.S. at 736-737.

On review of a habeas corpus challenge to Levy's court martial, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Articles 133 and 134 are void for vagueness. 478 F.2d 772 (CA3 1973). The Supreme Court reversed, opining:

Appellee urges that both Art. 133 and Art. 134 (the general article) are "void for vagueness" under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. We have recently said of the vagueness doctrine:

"The doctrine incorporates notions of fair notice or warning. Moreover, it requires legislatures to set reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent 'arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.' Where a statute's literal scope, unaided by a narrowing state court interpretation, is capable of reaching expression sheltered by the First Amendment, the doctrine demands a greater degree of specificity than in other contexts."

Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 415 U.S. 572-573 (1974). Each of these articles has been construed by the United States Court of Military Appeals or by other military authorities in such a manner as to at least partially narrow its otherwise broad scope.

The United States Court of Military Appeals has stated that Art. 134 must be judged "not in vacuo, but in the context in which the years have placed it," United States v. Frantz, 2 U.S.C.M.A. 161, 163, 7 C.M.R. 37, 39 (1953). Article 134 does not make "every irregular, mischievous, or improper act a court-martial offense," United States v. Sadinsky, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 563, 565, 34 C.M.R. 343, 345 (1964), but its reach is limited to conduct that is "directly and palpably -- as distinguished from indirectly and remotely -- prejudicial to good order and discipline.'" Ibid.; United States v. Holiday, 4 U.S.C.M.A. 454, 456, 16 C.M.R. 28, 30 (1954). It applies only to calls for active opposition to the military policy of the United States, United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 564, 45 C.M.R. 338 (1972), and does not reach all "[d]isagreement with, or objection to, a policy of the Government." United States v. Harvey, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 539, 544, 42 C.M.R. 141, 146 (1971).

417 U.S. at 752-753 [italics in original; boldface added].

In Contrast to Captain Levy's incendiary remarks, here can be no good faith argument that Senator Kelly's merely reminding military personnel that they are not required to obey illegal orders -- a concept that is drilled into every recruit at basic training -- is directly and palpably -- as distinguished from indirectly and remotely -- prejudicial to good order and discipline. The content of the video is fully protected under the First Amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

n g , still playing the fool on the hill.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, what that I have said do you dispute?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - you know full well the following
That as a Military retiree receiving military pension, Kelly remains subject military code of conduct.
That the underlying theme of the video was instructing military service members to disobey lawful orders. While the video did not state directly to disobey lawful orders, that was intent.

You have much greater credibility when your analysis is based on the actual facts, not your usual distortion of the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not the underlying theme, nor the intent. Hence your relying on ipse dixit.

You can stamp you foot and accuse all you want, as you do. But no one needs to take you or Hegseth seriously on this.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 14 minutes ago
"That’s not the underlying theme, nor the intent."

Your response is absolute BS. Both you, NG and everyone defending Kelly know that response is absolute BS
That was the Intent.

Feel free to respond in the interest of continuing the charade.

[Mr. Bumble]

Please, don't encourage or feed the troll.

[SRG2]

So you believe that Trump's orders are likely illegal. Gottit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gasloght0 & Captain Kangaroo are reflective of an entitled and corrupt cohort who have been feeding at the public trough for far too long. There was a time when this entitlement would not have been tolerated, and hopefully that time is returning.

[Krayt]

"Do not obey unlawful orders!"

"He's agitating to disobey lawful orders!"

"Wink wink" is doing some heavy lifting.

[David Nieporent]

That as a Military retiree receiving military pension, Kelly remains subject military code of conduct.

Maybe.

That the underlying theme of the video was instructing military service members to disobey lawful orders. While the video did not state directly to disobey lawful orders, that was intent.

Not only does NG not "know" that, but you don't know it either. In fact, as stupid as you are, even you aren't retarded enough to believe it. Which makes you either batshit crazy or an irredeemable liar, or — as always — both.

[not guilty]

"You have much greater credibility when your analysis is based on the actual facts, not your usual distortion of the facts."

What facts do you claim that I have distorted? I dispute that Senator Kelly in his video, by merely reminding service members that they can refuse illegal orders, has violated any provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as construed by the courts. So that readers can evaluate your inane claim that "the underlying theme of the video was instructing military service members to disobey lawful orders", the full video is here:* https://www.youtube.com/shorts/93iyxmzl82I Sen. Kelly's remarks are neither "unbecoming an officer and a gentleman," nor do they operate "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces," in violation of the provisions of Articles 133 and 134, respectively. There's simply no there, there.

That having been said, the UCMJ is enforceable only to the extent that it is consistent with constitutional guaranties. In Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), SCOTUS opined:

While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it. Doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth asserted in support of challenges to imprecise language like that contained in Arts. 133 and 134 are not exempt from the operation of these principles. The United States Court of Military Appeals has sensibly expounded the reason for this different application of First Amendment doctrines in its opinion in United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C.M.A. at 570, 45 C.M.R. at 344:

"In the armed forces, some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that, at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected. United States v. Gray, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 63, 42 C.M.R. 255 (1970)."

417 U.S. at 758-759 [emphasis added]. It is only in context of the narrowing construction by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals that SCOTUS upheld Articles 133 and 134 against Captain Levy's First Amendment overbreadth attack:

There is a wide range of the conduct of military personnel to which Arts. 133 and 134 may be applied without infringement of the First Amendment. While there may lurk at the fringes of the articles, even in the light of their narrowing construction by the United States Court of Military Appeals, some possibility that conduct which would be ultimately held to be protected by the First Amendment could be included within their prohibition, we deem this insufficient to invalidate either of them at the behest of appellee. His conduct, that of a commissioned officer publicly urging enlisted personnel to refuse to obey orders which might send them into combat, was unprotected under the most expansive notions of the First Amendment. Articles 133 and 134 may constitutionally prohibit that conduct, and a sufficiently large number of similar or related types of conduct so as to preclude their invalidation for overbreadth.

417 U.S. at 760-761.

As I pointed out upthread, I am unaware of any SCOTUS decision addressing the First Amendment rights of military retirees to speak out on matters of public concern. None of the concerns about good order and discipline that were present in Parker v. Levy are present with regard to Senator Kelly's anodyne reminder to military personnel that they are not required to obey illegal orders -- a concept that is drilled into every recruit at basic training. The content of the video is fully protected under the First Amendment.
_______________________
* As I have said time and time and time again, there is no substitute for original source materials. The content of the video itself shows Joe_dallas to be a shameless liar.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, suppose Senator Kelly was aware of the snatch and grab operations planning when he made the video.

Does that contextual change (meaning, suppose Kelly knew about the impending snatch and grab operation and presumably tried to undermine it by making the video with the other 5 nutjobs) make a difference?

[not guilty]

No.

[CountmontyC]

The problem is that Kelly is a military retiree receiving a pension and thus subject to military discipline. All the rest is chaff.

[Brett Bellmore]

This business of the only way of escaping military discipline being to sacrifice your pension is BS, in my opinion. You earned the pension during your service, it's not continued employment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn’t Lord Jeffrey Amherst lose his British pension for opposing the British activity in the revolutionary war?

There are hundreds of years of military tradition that states that retired officers are expected to still act like officers.

[David Nieporent]

Didn’t Lord Jeffrey Amherst lose his British pension for opposing the British activity in the revolutionary war?

No.

Not that this would be relevant in any way to the discussion, but I suppose you were desperate for some distantly-Massachusetts-related anecdote.

[SRG2]

That's not the problem. Claiming that telling the military that they should not obey illegal orders violates some code, that is the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can't identify the illegal order, you should keep your piehole closed. Everybody already knows they're not supposed to obey clearly illegal orders.

Statements like these, without identifying the supposedly illegal order, are intended to generate a general atmosphere of resistance to orders within the ranks.

[DDHarriman]

Right. But be kind and let them continue to pretend that the Seditious Six gave their recruitment speech in a vacuum, now that it's under scrutiny.

That haven't been told what to think yet by their braintenders.

[John F. Carr]

The prosecution of Arthur Andersen is a good example of the line between immoral and illegal conduct. An order went out to follow the preexisting document retention policy. The order meant shred all the incriminating Enron files. As worded it may have fallen on the legal side of the line. The case became moot when the company went out of business and the employees moved to other firms with better reputations.

[jb]

This sentiment aged really badly since there was an illegal order to kill survivors of one of the "drug boat" attacks just a few months after the video was made.

So at the very least, it quickly became clear that the kind of thing the video was concerned about was not a theoretical concern, even if they didn't identify specific orders at the time.

[David Nieporent]

This sentiment aged really badly since there was an illegal order to kill survivors of one of the "drug boat" attacks just a few months after the video was made.

Your timeline is off. The order to which you refer was given months before the video. It was just revealed (right) after the video.

[David Nieporent]

If you can't identify the illegal order, you should keep your piehole closed.

That doesn't make any sense. The only way for someone outside the military to "identify the illegal order" is to wait until it's given, at which point it would be too late. At that point one would be Monday Morning Quarterbacking, "You should've disobeyed that order."

Everybody already knows they're not supposed to obey clearly illegal orders.

Do they? Most of the MAGA here and elsewhere online don't seem to realize it.

[not guilty]

"Everybody already knows they're not supposed to obey clearly illegal orders."

That being the case, Senator Kelly's remarks in the video are completely anodyne.

[ducksalad]

So every military veteran has lost their freedom of speech and is subject to discipline? What an ill-considered thing to say.

[CountmontyC]

As long as they are receiving pay from the military they are subject to the military's rules. They know this when they apply for their pension.

[ducksalad]

The doubling down is more ill-considered.

In 2016, "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told an audience in a previously unreported 2016 video that the US military 'won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,' and described the refusal of illegal commands as a part of the military’s ethos and standards"

Question, CountmontyC - would you say a future president has the authority to discipline Hegseth for those remarks? Specifically, to demote him and reduce his pension.

I'd appreciate a yes or no answer, but of course feel free to waffle and finesse.

[CountmontyC]

The simple answer then is no. Why you ask? Because the facts involved are different. Hegseth was neither active duty nor receiving a pension meaning he was not subject to military discipline under the UCMJ. Remember it involves being paid by the military ( thus why Kelly is subject to military discipline but the other Seditious Six are not).
Another difference is that the Seditious Six targeted their message directly towards the troops whereas Hegseth was giving a speech to civilians. The Seditious Six were also including in their message that the current POTUS was likely giving illegal orders ( though they offered no specific examples) whereas Hegseth's speech was a general discussion. He did not suggest that Obama (who was POTUS at the time) was doing anything illegal.
Of course there also would be statute of limitations issue.

[David Nieporent]

Another difference is that the Seditious Six targeted their message directly towards the troops

Well, not exactly. "We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community."

The Seditious Six were also including in their message that the current POTUS was likely giving illegal orders

Where is the word "likely" found in the video?

[not guilty]

In 2016, "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told an audience in a previously unreported 2016 video that the US military 'won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,' and described the refusal of illegal commands as a part of the military’s ethos and standards"

Interesting. Do you have a link to the video, ducksalad?

[ducksalad]

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

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nk_WaGy1aY4

One is via CNN and one is via the New York Post. For those who don't trust one or the other.

[not guilty]

Thank you.

[David Nieporent]

As long as they are receiving pay from the military they are subject to the military's rules. They know this when they apply for their pension.

As long as Trump hasn't fully overthrown the government, the military's rules are subject to the constitution. They know this when they write/enforce those rules.

[CountmontyC]

And? Employers are allowed to set rules on employee behavior and the military can set standards ( such as banning protesting while in uniform) that might otherwise be unconstitutional.

[David Nieporent]

And, the government is not allowed unlimited discretion to set rules on employee behavior; the constitution limits that authority. It is true that restrictions on the speech of active duty servicemembers have been upheld. But I do not believe that any court — and certainly not SCOTUS — has upheld such restrictions on retired servicemembers.

[not guilty]

"It is true that restrictions on the speech of active duty servicemembers have been upheld. But I do not believe that any court — and certainly not SCOTUS — has upheld such restrictions on retired servicemembers."

I am likewise unaware of any such judicial opinion. If Senator Kelly is demoted and his pension is thereby reduced, he will have a cause of action for a great test case. If his speech is determined to be First Amendment protected, I would think that strict scrutiny should apply, and the burden of justification would fall upon the government.

[John F. Carr]

Trump could revoke Kelly's commission because a person holding an "Office under the United States" can't serve in Congress. The Supreme Court ran away from this issue in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War by ruling that private citizens couldn't sue to enforce the constitution without proving an individualized harm.

[DDHarriman]

No one cares by your motivated analysis.

Have some integrity... for once.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

While senator Kelly can say whatever he pleases, Captain Kelly can lose his retirement pension because of it. Those are the rules those have always been the rules and Kelly should have known that.

What he said before was questionable, but if he actually said what NG is quoting him as having said, he’s lucky to only lose his pension. He really deserves the pleasure of making big rocks into little ones.

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what statute(s) do you contend that Senator Kelly has violated?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The statute regulating military retirement pay.

[not guilty]

Which statute would that be?

[Joe_dallas]

The purpose of the video was to encourage the military members to disobey lawful orders. Even you cant be blind to the obvious implication.

[SRG2]

The purpose of the video was to encourage the military members to disobey lawful orders.

Mind-reader, huh?

As I noted yesterday, you Nuremberg types are actually conceding that Trump's orders may well be illegal as a logical consequence of when someone says don't obey illegal orders and you take that to mean, disobey Trump's orders.

[Joe_dallas]

No not a mind reader - but astute enough to recognize the obvious intent of the video. Most everyone knows the underlying intent - even you.

You can quit the charade.

[SRG2]

Nope. Everyone knows that some of Trump's orders are very likely illegal, and that is what Kelly was addressing, while you Nurembergers believe that Trump's orders should be obeyed regardless of legality.

So quit the charade.

[Commenter_XY]

Does everybody know that? Name the illegal orders.

[ThePublius]

ditto

[SRG2]

The orders to attack the drug boats, for example.

But it doesn't really matter. If you Nurembergers thought that all Trump's orders were legal, you would not be so vexed by Kelly reminding the military that they shouldn't obey illegal orders.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just whom (beside you) has determined that any of these orders were/are illegal?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"...obvious intent..."

There is where you are forced to go, since you cannot make a case based on the words they actually used. Although they actually said "unlawful orders," they really meant "lawful orders." Pretty lame. We'll see how that flies when it inevitably gets to court.

[David Nieporent]

The purpose of the video was to encourage the military members to disobey lawful orders. Even you cant be blind to the obvious implication.

Again, is bookkeeper_joe batshit crazy, a liar, or a batshit crazy liar?

[Joe_dallas]

Crazy Dave announces he is oblivious to the obvious.

[David Nieporent]

You're not helping us ascertain the answer to my question.

[Frank Drackman]

Only 39 Combat Missions? My Dad flew more than that, against an Enemy that actually was pretty good at shooting our planes down(Over 2,000). 4 Space Missions? besides wasting money, about the only cool thing the Shuttle did was fly around in that ZZ Top Video (Sleeping Bag, 1985) Kelly is a pompous Prick, more "I"
s in his Statement than an Idaho Potato Farm, not a mention of the Mechanics that kept his Airplanes flying, the Cooks who kept him fed, the Flight Docs who kept him healthy, Fuck him.

Frank

[SRG2]

Excess capitalisation is a sign of cognitive decline. Not that we needed one.

[hobie]

Mark Kelly: "Four generations of my family have served our country. Service is in my blood. The President wouldn’t know anything about that."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clearly, Kelly does not know the meaning of the word “service.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"During his Navy career, Kelly received two Defense Superior Service Medals; one Legion of Merit; two Distinguished Flying Crosses; four Air Medals (two individual/two strike flight) with Combat "V"; two Navy Commendation Medals, (one with combat "V"); one Navy Achievement Medal; two Southwest Asia Service Medals; one Navy Expeditionary Medal; two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons; a NASA Distinguished Service Medal; and an Overseas Service Ribbon."

[not guilty]

Quite a contrast to the chickenhawk Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump.

[ducksalad]

Had a bone spur last year. Surprisingly painful! Got soaked with sweat just getting off the bed and onto crutches to get to the bathroom. Weight of a bedsheet on the foot was agony.

[Voize of Reazon]

It seems odd but by my reading of the statutes and precedents Hegseth may be on firmer ground to terminate Kelly's retired pay entirely rather than try to reduce it.

Hooper v. US, affirmed through the military courts and finally in the Court of Claims, held that retired admiral Selden Hooper was still in the service of the armed forces and therefore validly subject to the UCMJ and to court-martial jurisdiction, reasoning that

the [retired] salary he received was not solely recompense for past services, but a means devised by Congress to assure his availability and preparedness in future contingencies.

The court-martial convicted Hooper and dismissed him from the service, which meant he was no longer entitled to retired pay at all.

[David Nieporent]

The issue isn't whether the UCMJ can generally be applied to a retired servicemember. The issue is whether the specific exception to the 1A that the court has accepted for active servicemembers can be applied to a retired one.

[Voize of Reazon]

That is certainly an issue, and a distinguishing one (Hooper's conviction was for sodomy, not speech), but not my issue. Mine was whether retired pay could be reduced as punishment for post-retirement acts. It is normally determined by the highest pay received during satisfactory active service, and that calculation wouldn't be disturbed by later behavior even if it resulted in a reduction in rank.

[not guilty]

I suspect that President Bone Spurs and Secretary Hegseth are scared shitless of court martial proceedings -- an adversarial proceeding where Senator Kelly could contest the charges.

As Dean John Henry Wigmore famously said, cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923).

[Voize of Reazon]

He could still contest an administrative punishment if it causes him injury. I suspect Hegseth will settle for the letter of censure - something that would kill the career prospects of an officer in active service, but will have no effect on Kelly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution – including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would attack me..."

Twenty-five years in the military, and this is the first time he's gotten fucked over? Sounds like it's his time.

Hopefully this case will establish that retired military members are entitled to full first amendment rights. Until then, I guess he can do his criticizing from the Senate floor.

[not guilty]

If Senator Kelly raises a First Amendment claim, I wonder if the District of Columbia or the District of Arizona would be the better venue. I would think that venue would lie in either federal district.

[Kazinski]

Interesting, but long Xeet from a Cargoll employee that used to produce and import food into Venezuela.

First little bit but read the whole thing:

"My Venezuela experience as head of trading in the region for Cargill.

Cargill was/is the leading producer of critical staple ingredients such as flour, pasta, vegetable oil, and rice in VZ. I am not saying I agree with grabbing the dictator, but I did have a front row seat to the damage a kleptocracy did to innocent people.
1. The government took over our "minute rice" facility at gunpoint because we were "gouging" the nation's poor. The government was never able to run the plant. It never ran again. It was returned years later with no equipment inside"

https://x.com/i/status/2008280244105380254

[Dr. Ed 2]

This raises the point that Exxon made, having twice had the government steal their investment, they’re really not interested in additional investments in Venezuela without some external guarantee that this won’t happen again. I don’t know why Cargill didn’t simply pull out of Venezuela.

On a larger scale, I think China is gonna run into a lot of the same stuff with this massive investments in Africa.

[Malika la Maize]

Conservative Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday pointed the finger directly at his colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as the primary instigator behind President Trump’s surprise mission to send U.S. special operators into Caracas to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Paul lamented what he sees as a reversal from Trump’s previous staunch opposition to nation-building and said Graham was a major factor in changing the president’s thinking on foreign policy.

“This is Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham has gotten to the president who expressed — I saw a clip — there’s like 20 clips of [Trump] saying he’s not for regime change and how regime change has always gone wrong. Somehow they’ve convinced him it’s different if it’s in our hemisphere,” Paul told reporters Monday, lamenting the growing influence of hawkish Republicans such as Graham on Trump’s Venezuela policy.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5673949-rand-paul-blames-lindsey-graham/?tbref=hp

[Kazinski]

To be clear Rand Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian.

That's not a criticism, he's one of my favorite Senators, but Libertarians are way to eclectic to be called conservatives.

[Brett Bellmore]

Paul is the only guy in the modern GOP who I'd be genuinely happy to vote for. (DeSantis only got me into meh territory.) But the GOP is never, ever going to nominate him to be President. The national party has actually been trying to knock him off for years, funding primary challengers.

He's just too locally popular for it to work.

[Frank Drackman]

And he's got that ridiculous 1974 Mike Brady Perm, which makes me question the rest of his judgement, I've seen childhood photos of Rand(He was "Randy" back then) He had the same Moe Howard Bowl Cut I had.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

If I voted for haircuts I'd have supported Romney years ago.

[Kazinski]

I like Rand in the Senate just fine, but not as President.

At least not for another 10 years, it would take 10 years of paring back government and peoples expectations of government to prepare the way for a Paul presidency.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, what we don’t yet know is how much the Chinese and Russians were involved in Venezuela. We know the Cubans were — we’re back to where we were 45 years ago with the Cuban troops Advancing communist agenda at gunpoint.

Reality is that the Chinese were physically there that night, boots on the crowd, doing, we know not what. They are desperate, Putin‘s exceedingly desperate, as are the Cubans. Much as a wounded bear is found dangerous that a healthy one, these wounded communist kleptocracies are inherently dangerous because of the desperation of their corrupt leadership.

Not every military secret appears in the front page of the New York Times. I’m inclined to wait a bit and see what comes out before passing the judgment on Teddy Trump.

[Kazinski]

I don't think Graham was the primary instigator, although I don't doubt he was for it and told the President he would help handle the GOP caucus.

It's obvious Rubio was 100% for it, if Hegseth had any questions after being told to jump, it was "how high?". I'm not sure what the purpose is to try to spread the to Graham is but I'm not falling for it, Graham isn't a conservative any more than Rand Paul is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are assuming that there aren’t classified things which Graham knows and we don’t. The more I see about the Cubans, the Chinese, and now the Russians being involved in Venezuela the more I start wondering what was really going on.

The Chinese could end our fentanyl problem tomorrow if they wanted to, the Chinese manufacture, the chemicals fentanyl is made from, they don’t have any legitimate purpose for those chemicals, may have the ability to say that thou shall not make them anymore. The fact they haven’t done this Speaks volumes.

The British subverted China with opium from India, this is Chinese history, and they surely know it. Subverting the US with fentanyl and cocaine, may have the same intent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Conservatives in SC have been trying to get rid of Graham for many years, they hate him passionately. It's the open primary that preserves him: Democrats, knowing they've no hope in the general election, cross over and help him win the primary instead of somebody more conservative. If SC ever adopts a closed primary, he's out.

[Frank Drackman]

I think Graham's done pretty well in the Closet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't think Graham was the primary instigator"

It was Rubio. Weaken Cuba through V is the goal.

[Commenter_XY]

Very few people outside of BlueCry care about inside DC baseball; DC is disconnected from the American people. Wrt VEN, neither the American nor Venezuelan people see body bags of their military coming home.

The only 'nation building' I hear about is restoring oil infrastructure, by US oil companies (at their expense). Increasing oil supply lowers cost (this is actual Econ 101, for the economic geniuses out there).

I don't have a problem with cheaper gasoline and cheaper energy, and I don't think VEN will have a problem with rebuilt oil infrastructure and the ticket out of poverty that oil represents.

[Brett Bellmore]

The people currently running the joint might have a problem with having to leave it alone, though. I can't see this working with them left in place, and they have to be fearful of the personal consequences of not staying on top.

Their best hope is that the US agrees to treat Maduro as the sacrificial lamb, and guarantees them non-horrific retirements.

[DaveM]

In the video of Trump being interviewed on Air Force One about the capture of Maduro, Graham is standing beside him grinning from ear to ear like an excited puppy. Let's go straight to the informal fallacy: if Graham is for something, shouldn't everyone be against it?

That aside, I do think it's different in our own hemisphere. The thought of China controlling even part of the Panama Canal gives me chills, as does Iran setting up shop in Venezula. It's not hard to imagine that among the whatever-millions of illegal aliens the Biden administration facilitated to come here are some very bad people from there.

The question is, is it different *enough* to justify such hands-on military action? I'm taking a wait and see attitude. They've done the capture, now let's see the charges.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Let's go straight to the informal fallacy: if Graham is for something, shouldn't everyone be against it?"

I wouldn't go that far, but if Graham is for something, I do think that's reason enough to examine it skeptically.

[Josh R]

The argument that this was to keep China's hand off is every bit as persuasive as it was about freeing the people of Venezuela. Trump has repeatedly said it was about oil. And Stephen Miller summed it up:

We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.

America First is American imperialism in the Western Hemisphere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"America First is American imperialism in the Western Hemisphere."

Roosevelt Corollary for a new century.

[ducksalad]

Poor Lindsey can't get it right:

Sen. Lindsey Graham seemed eager to please when he told the president aboard Air Force One on Sunday night that “when you first got elected in January, we made the biggest comeback ever.”

But the 79-year-old MAGA leader was apparently not impressed.

“You think so, really? I didn‘t feel it was a comeback, actually,” Trump shot back, apparently offended by Graham forgetting that the 2020 election, by his account, was “rigged.”

The South Carolina Republican was quick to move the conversation on.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/president-donald-trump-throws-maga-suck-ups-attempt-at-flattery-back-in-his-face/

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/67441

I find this interesting not for what it says, but for what it doesn’t realize it is saying, notably that the Russians were viewing Venezuela in a context, similar to the way they were viewing the Ukraine.

While it’s clear what Trump‘s response was, when I find fascinating is that Putin thought he could make such an offer. When you view that in the context of what Putin thought that the capabilities of the Russian army were — I.e. that most of its tanks actually ran, etc. — it gives some perspective as to what Putin might have been planning in the absence of a Trump 45 presidency.

[Michael P]

Mamdani's appointees are insane. This lady reads like one of the racist trolls here.

"But also endorse a no more white men in office platform."
"Impoverish the *white* middle class. Homeownership is racist / failed public policy"

https://xcancel.com/michelletandler/status/2008299806074995094

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say they're insane as such. They're revolutionaries who aspire to carrying out a communist revolution in the US.

It's not a very realistic aspiration, no country with a functioning modern economy has ever had a communist revolution, even before everyone knew how awful communism was in practice.

But, hey, if they can destroy that functioning modern economy, they might be able to pull it off, and in the meantime they can get the support of enough useful idiots to live well.

[Sarcastr0]

revolutionaries who aspire to carrying out a communist revolution in the US.

Your fan fiction tends towards justifying preemptive violence against liberals these days.

[DDHarriman]

Ignore their own words, everyone! Sarcastr0 is going to shame and fingerwag YOU if you dare listen to the words these birds of a feather say!

-----
Note how fucking sick this sort of thinking is.

Not a bad statement: "Impoverish the *white* middle class. Homeownership is racist / failed public policy"

Oh noes, you must never speak: "those people who said the above are revolutionaries!"

What an evil belief system and value system. Evil. Demonic.

[Michael P]

As always, Gaslight0's imagination and denialism do most of the work.

Meanwhile in political violence, https://nypost.com/2026/01/05/us-news/alleged-jd-vance-home-vandal-is-child-of-wealthy-local-doctor-who-recently-changed-name/

[Sarcastr0]

Brett’s imagining a revolutionary conspiracy.

I’m pointing out that’s nonsense. Violence rationalizing nonsense.
I don’t care for dramatic speculation like that. It ends up allowing you to ignore principles because of a crisis you made up.

You love that kind of nonsense though.

Go play with Lex the antisemite; you seem to dig what he lays down.

[DDHarriman]

Yes Micheal be shamed, self censor, and behave like Sarcastr0 wants you to or you'll never get his approval!

Don't you dare listen to these people call for revolution and then repeat their words! That could be dangerous for them! Not you, mind you, unless you're White of course. But you're not supposed to read their dangerous-to-you anti-White rhetoric either!! That's dangerous to the revolutionaries!! (But don't call them that, it's super dangerous to them, they can call themselves that though, that's totally okay) You must be a good MAGAt and self silence while these people plan and proclaim their intended revolutionary violence towards you!

[Michael P]

You don't have to demonstrate my point even further. But you did.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know you've become a parody of yourself when just not ignoring what people say is "fan fiction".

[David Nieporent]

What do you think she said that constitutes "carrying out a communist revolution"? She's a dumbass who doesn't understand economics and has the politics of an edgy 17-year old — hey, I just described Voltage!, too — but she's as likely to take up arms as Donald Trump is to read a book.

[ThePublius]

No one invoked violence until you did. No one even suggested violence, preemptive or other wise. What's wrong with you?

Mamdani and his staff members are indeed calling for a socialist/communist revolution, since what they are advocating and attempting to implement is patently unconstitutional. Seizing property. Impoverishing the white middle class. Rent control and other regulations designed to reduce property values. City-owned and operated grocery stores. Free buses and subways. Free childcare for all. And on and on. I am not making this up, this is what they are openly saying! Shouldn't we believe that that they mean what they say?

Why are you arguing against people who point this out? I think the answer is that you don't have positions, you only have opposition. You are a democrat-aligned political contrarian.

[DDHarriman]

this is what they are openly saying!

But noticing what they are doing, a commie revolution, could potentially put them in harms way!!

So stop NOTICING!! For the sake of the children!

[Swede425]

Yes yes yes but a BLOODLESS socialist/communist revolution.
These are the nice kind of socialists/communists.

[jb]

"Mamdani and his staff members are indeed calling for a socialist/communist revolution, since what they are advocating and attempting to implement is patently unconstitutional. Seizing property. Impoverishing the white middle class. Rent control and other regulations designed to reduce property values. City-owned and operated grocery stores. Free buses and subways. Free childcare for all. And on and on. I am not making this up, this is what they are openly saying! Shouldn't we believe that that they mean what they say?"

It seems weird to be using the present tense to describe statements from 3-8 years ago.

Mamdami and his administration have actual policy proposals. Some of them are pretty dumb. Seems like it would be more useful to criticize the stuff they're actually trying to do than some Tweets from last decade.

[DDHarriman]

Her video talking about the revolution and how Whites are bad was from 2022.

So really what you have is a almost 10 year pattern of espoused beliefs, which you are trying to suggest have vanished in the past few years.

Which, of course, is commie-covering-up nonsense. And you should be ashamed.

Collectivism has destroyed more humanity than any other belief system, you're a foot soldier providing ass covering for these revolutionaries.

[jb]

I don't know if her beliefs have changed or not, but it doesn't really matter. What matters are what actual policies the Mamdami administration tries to enact.

For example, Mamdami has actually proposed a rent freeze (on rent controlled units). I don't think that's very good policy, but I also don't think that anyone else has been able to make housing more affordable in NYC (or anywhere else) for the past several decades, so I get why they're flailing around for answers. Seems a lot more productive to debate stuff they're actually doing than having debates with Tweets or videos from the past.

[DDHarriman]

Do you take this same measured wait-and-see approach or is this just something you want others to do when it's your side under scrutiny?

[jb]

I usually find that there's plenty enough actual stupid shit that MAGAs are trying to do to occupy my brain, yes.

[DDHarriman]

I can see that you have no integrity and are a liar.

You didn't take a "wait and see" approach with Trump's policies.

[jb]

If there's one thing we should all be able to agree on, it's that Trump's past statements have basically nothing to do with what policies he's going to try to enact.

[ThePublius]

Rent control and other regulations designed to reduce property values, city-owned and operated grocery stores, "free and fast" buses and subways, and free childcare for all are all recent promises, campaign promises, made in 2025. Mamdani recently indicated the city would take over buildings from "worst landlords" who fail to make necessary repairs and are out of compliance with city regulations. January 1, 2026: "The city's going to step in — and send them the bill. If that doesn't work, the city is taking over the building. We're putting the worst landlords out of business". On rent control, Mamdani has vowed to freeze rents for all eligible stabilized units throughout his term, arguing that landlords' incomes have risen sufficiently to absorb costs without passing them to tenants. He maintains that "landlords are doing just fine".

"Mamdani...is pushing for government-run grocery stores to combat high food costs, proposing a pilot with five city-owned markets offering wholesale prices, rent/tax exemptions, and aiming to be affordable, contrasting with private chains; his recent remarks focus on cracking down on "junk fees" and predatory pricing, though experts debate the feasibility of public stores competing with large grocers, citing mixed results from small-town examples."

During his campaign Mamdani's platform explicitly called for raising taxes on "richer and whiter neighborhoods".
He has defended this stance, which opponents have labeled as "racist" and divisive.

So, what that I said is not current policy?

But that's beside the point. Has Cea Weaver repudiated what she tweeted 8 years ago? No. Is she now in the Mamdani administration with a position in housing? Yes. Time doesn't wash away people's core positions and beliefs.

You same guys who repeatedly dismiss Weaver's remarks as being 8 years old flogged Trump with his then 12 year old Access Hollywood locker room talk.

[jb]

I mean, free buses and five government owned grocery stores hardly feel like the stuff of a Communist hellscape. And forcing landlords to make basic habitability improvements seems like one of his less kooky policies.

Your last bit is actually quite telling: from a policy perspective, a lot of people in NYC probably were more closely-aligned with Cuomo than Mamdani. But many of those same people couldn't get past Cuomo's past sexual harassment, which they considered disqualifying. Whereas MAGA has just decided that it doesn't matter how awful Trump is, y'all will support him no matter what.

If Cea Weaver ever runs for office, we can decide how relevant her past is. For now, she's a functionary within Mamdani's government. We'll see how it goes.

[Sarcastr0]

These people understand what a communist revolution entails. They're just winding themselves up more and more based on obvious nonsense.

[DDHarriman]

What does a communist revolution entail? Can you give some examples to buttress your refutation?

[Commenter_XY]

Hizzoner Mamdani is an antisemitic marxist.

[Malika la Maize]

Tik Tok Tyrant.

[Michael P]

They are probably somewhere in DSM-V, but there is a wide range of derangement that doesn't present textbook symptoms.

https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/jacob-chansley-qanon-shaman-jan-6-arizona-governor-jake-angeli-c650fb0j7

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m worrying about them legitimizing a truly white supremacist group like the Klan. At a certain point, white people will also organize, and that organization inherently will become something like the clan, and then we will truly have a two sided race war and something resembling Yugoslavia.

[DDHarriman]

Doctrinaire Democrats these days.

[apedad]

Trump May Have Accidentally Pardoned the Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber

As many in Washington were easing into the new year, there was a flurry of activity last week in the prosecution of Brian Cole Jr. — the man accused of planting pipe bombs outside the DNC and RNC headquarters the night before Jan. 6, 2021. The Justice Department obtained an indictment from a grand jury and, following a court hearing, persuaded a judge to keep Cole detained pending trial.

Trump’s proclamation commuted the sentences of 14 individuals and also granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” This immediately covered roughly 1,500 people, including hundreds of defendants who were charged with assaulting or resisting law enforcement officers.

For starters, it does not matter whether Trump specifically intended to pardon the person who planted the pipe bombs. Under the law, it is the text of the pardon that matters — not the subjective intention of the president or the DOJ’s interpretation of it. The Justice Department has claimed that it has the power to decide who is eligible for certain pardons, but the courts have been skeptical of that position, as they should be.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/06/jan-6-pipe-bomber-trump-pardon-column-00712039

This guy Trump . . . he's not that smart and rather impulsive.

Not qualities we look for in a president.

[Michael P]

This theory was already floated and shot down weeks ago. That Politico runs it again, and you fall for it again, reflects on people with TDS rather than on Trump.

For a start, the pipe bombs were left on January 5th. The crime was discovered the next day, but committed on a day that the pardon doesn't cover.

[Swede425]

Hope springs eternal for the TDS set.
It's like watching Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, step on his crank over and over again.

[hobie]

And the Oath Keepers brought an illegal arsenal into their motel rooms the day before as well. Still got pardoned.

[ducksalad]

"related to events.....on January 6".

If we accepted your interpretation and selective deletion of the critical word, the J6ers would still be on the hook for all the preparatory steps that occurred on or before 1/5: buying plane tickets and tie wraps, making phone calls to co-conspirators, etc. They would also be on the hook for any illegal actions taken to evade arrest, destroy evidence, etc on 1/7 or after.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is twofold:

1) Trump didn't pardon everyone for acts related to the events of J6; he pardoned everyone convicted of acts related to the events of J6. Since the pipe bomber didn't fit in that description, Trump didn't pardon him.

2) The current theory of the case is that the pipe bomber's actions were not related to the events of J6. He was an independent actor.

[ducksalad]

I see that the pipe bomber is still on the hook. But MichaelP's reason (the pardon doesn't cover acts done the day before) seems to prove too much.

[jb]

DDHarriman points to the real problem with the language of the pardon referenced in the Politico story--it refers to people who were past-tense "convicted" to crimes related to January 6, so it doesn't seem like it would apply to new convictions. So I think this part of the Politico piece is wrong:

Trump could have specified that the pardon applied only to people who had been convicted or charged “as of the date” of his pardon (or similar words to that effect), but there is no such language in Trump’s proclamation.

During the last discussion of this, though, there was discussion of a separate pardon to everyone that tried to subvert the election. In particular it pardons "any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election." Based on some other reporting, it seems like Cole may try to assert that he planted the bombs to bring attention to the "fraud" in the election, in which case it seems plausible this pardon may apply. At the very, it's less obvious to me than what the Politico story chose to go with.

[DDHarriman]

Is "convicted" future tense or past tense, as far as you understand American language?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question Apedad, would Trump‘s pardon apply to someone convicted of shoplifting that day? Or to someone convicted of beating up his wife in a nearby apartment?

I haven’t seen mention of this….

Notwithstanding that, I don’t have a major problem if someone like this beats the wrap on a technicality. His fingerprint will be on file and we both know that all kinds of agencies be watching him for the rest of his life. If he decides to behave himself, good — and if he doesn’t, I doubt he’ll get very far.

Or am I considering my government to be more competent than I should?

[David Nieporent]

For the record, it's "beats the rap," not "beats the wrap." But it's only the former if one is trying too hard.

[DDHarriman]

We live in a Democrat comedy.

Capitol police officer Michael Byrd who shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt on January 6th, reportedly has a taxpayer funded daycare in his home run by his wife…

Because of course he does…

https://x.com/i/status/2008432778816188680

Obama succeeded in the Leftwing vision of ruining and collapsing America.

That $1T in Democrat/POC fraud is entirely believable and explains how the Feds can spend $7T/yr and things get worse.

[Frank Drackman]

The Chimpanzee randomly hits the Dart Board for once.

[DDHarriman]

It isn't respectful of the dead to call Ashli Babbit a "Dart Board".

[Frank Drackman]

You were doing so well Coco, now you're back to throwing your Feces.

[DDHarriman]

You've reduced yourself to White-knighting Michael Byrd.

lmao pathetic. what a dumbass

[David Nieporent]

Nothing in the tweet even hints that it is "taxpayer funded." That's just typical Voltage!

[Michael P]

The mayor of a city hosting zero World Cup games still wants to bring the warmth of collectivism to the World Cup.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/2008249681328128390

[ThePublius]

"BREAKING: NY Mayor Mamdani says he is working to ensure World Cup tickets are "available to all""

Bread and circus.

[Bob from Ohio]

There is no kickball game in NYC, its at the Meadowlands in NJ.

[santamonica811]

LOL. It's generally funny when you lie and beclown yourself. But, when people lie, they should at least make it a tiny bit difficult to disprove. Trump lying about his past sexual assaults? That's impossible to disprove (at least, definitively). Lying about the size of his crowd on Inauguration One? That took 15 seconds. Your lie was easy to disprove. By this point; you're not even trying to be an effective troll any more. That's just sad.

Try to create lies that are more in category one, and less in category two. You're welcome.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for Saudi Arabia vs Spain, a series that dates back to 711.

[Malika la Maize]

Maybe bribe him with something shiny?

[hobie]

OhOH...It's Michael P. Better check the link.

[Checking]

Yep. Mamdani laments that World Cup tickets have become too expensive. And that's exactly all he says. Not anything more. What's next? He complains about the price of eggs or gas?

[jb]

Did you bother to actually watch the 28 second video? It seems like no, since Mamdani doesn't say what the breathless headline asserts, even the part in quotation marks.

He cites the World Cup as an example of something that most New York residents can't afford anymore, and then says he is working to make more experiences that are available to more New Yorkers. At no point does he say he is working to ensure that World Cup tickets are available to all.

[ThePublius]

Hilton Hotels is on the threshold of their own Bud-Lite moment:

"This email is in regards to the reservation you made with the Hampton Inn Lakeville property.

We have noticed an influx of GOV reservations made today that have been for DHS, and we are not allowing any ICE or immigration agents to stay at our property. If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know as we will have to cancel your reservation.

Please pass on this info to your coworkers that we are not allowing any immigration agents to house on our property."

Corporate has responded, but rather weakly, in my opinion. We'll see what happens.

What I don't understand is that, aren't hotels place of public accommodation, and you can't deny service to a class of people? I think that if they've broken the law here, civil rights law, they should be assiduously prosecuted. The feds should cancel all contracts with Hilton and not allow government employees to stay in Hilton properties on government business. Take them off the approved vendor list.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/01/dhs-accuses-hilton-of-blacklisting-ice-agents-in-minneapolis/

[Michael P]

Both Hilton and the franchisee quickly made it clear that the hotel staff violated their policies by cancelling those reservations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hilton-says-minnesota-hotel-apologized-over-cancelled-dhs-rooms/ar-AA1TD3mR

[Joe_dallas]

My understanding is that Hilton is the property manager, not the owner of the property. Appears the owner of the property is the one that made the cancellation order. Though details are unclear at this time.

There are also indications that Hilton is cancelling the franchise agreement with the property owner. Again better details to follow

[ThePublius]

Damage control. Who knows who to believe?

So, they apologized. Now what? Any restitution? What did it cost the agents in time and money to find alternate accommodations?

An apology only is not enough. There should be some restitution, and one or more people should be fired. Civil rights violations should be explored.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess is that the people involved have been fired, Ice knows that Hilton is pissed about this, and the franchisee will have to perform some active tribute to ICE. None of this will come out publicly, but you’ll see something like the franchise sponsoring some program for DHS children or something.

A lot of the stuff is very quietly dealt with and usually that’s for the best.

[Joe_dallas]

Reports are that hilton is terminating the franchise agreement. That is going to cost the property owner a bunch of money.
That will be more than enough to satisfy DHS.

The property owner is the one that cancelled the reservations made through the Hilton system. Hilton is not the one that cancelled the reservations.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Knowing that, DHS isn’t likely to sue Hilton, but they could.

[Bob from Ohio]

"terminating the franchise agreement"

A death sentence for the hotel.

[ducksalad]

Sure Bob, no hotel can survive more than few weeks without being associated with Hilton.

Whenever you see other hotels they're either in ruins or secretly a Hilton franchise.

[Bob from Ohio]

The removal of the "flag" means no access to the national reservation system of that company and being unable to benefit from any brand loyalty of customers including benefit programs like Hilton Honors.

Another chain can sign them up but its not an instant thing or automatic. Each chain has its own requirements. Maybe they get a new flag, maybe not.

Some people won't go to a non-chain hotel. You cannot make a reservation on a chain's web site or by calling their 800#. Business will suffer. Meanwhile that bank loan needs to be paid.

Maybe you shouldn't just jump to snark when you know nothing about the business.

[ducksalad]

Google is claiming 6 million Hilton Honors members. Pretty impressive!

Wonder how many people there are like me: won't stay at any Hilton because the "flag" means expensive rooms, you have to pay for breakfast instead of getting for free, and the other guests are the kind of Karens that "join" businesses and reward programs and take up counter time demanding perks while I'm waiting to pay and hit the sack. I'd guess more than 6 million but we don't carry membership cards so there's no count.

Anyway, it's unlikely I'll vacation again in Minnesota, too many mosquitoes. But if I do (winter maybe) I'll go an hour off course just to stay at the former Hampton Inn Lakeville, perhaps renamed Liberty Inn Lakeville.

[Michael P]

That's a really bizarre, incoherent rant. Which is sadly par for the wordsalad course. It even included an assumption of a free lunch, I mean breakfast.

[bernard11]

True, but I'm guessing other chains are going to be reluctant to contract with the owner. Maybe he can find someone, or operate as an independent - tough to do these days - but most likely he will end up selling, and not at a great price.

[ducksalad]

OK I suppose there'll be some financial consequences short of "death sentence for the hotel".

Just little hints in the comments tell me that many here live at a substantially higher level than I do. Maybe not surprising for a blog catering to lawyers. My wife and I don't travel enough to belong to any "rewards" programs. We generally book rooms by looking for a "Vacancy" sign in the office window (office...not grand lobby) and ringing the bell. We might go as high as a Comfort Inn if we feel like living it up.

[ThePublius]

They lied. Even after their bullshit apology they continue to deny rooms to DHS employees.

"Nick Sortor
@nicksortor
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: I went into the Minnesota Hilton who “apologized” for banning DHS agents, and EXPOSED them for CONTINUING to ban DHS agents

@HiltonHotels
has decided they want the FULL BUDLIGHT treatment at this point.

Hilton’s operator, Everpeak, STRAIGHT UP LIED in their statement yesterday which said they were “in touch” with DHS to accommodate impacted agents, and “do not discriminate against any individuals or agencies.”

NONE of that was true. There was NO attempt to reach DHS agents to make it right, per Asst. DHS Sec.
@TriciaOhio

Even the FRONT DESK manager said he had spoken with the owner shortly before I walked in around 10:50pm, and confirmed the ANTI-DHS POLICY REMAINED IN EFFECT.

REVOKE THEIR LICENSE, HILTON, OR IT’S GOING TO COST YOU DEARLY. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED.

This is an INCREDIBLY dumb battle to choose!"

Watch the video of the front desk interaction after they said they were sorry:

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2008497245826556404

[Estragon]

“They lied. Even after their bullshit apology they continue to deny rooms to DHS employees.”

I think you should boycott Hilton in solidarity. Are we still boycotting Cracker Barrel too?

[ThePublius]

Oh, very funny. Make light of it if you don't have a cogent response.

[Joe_dallas]

"Even the FRONT DESK manager said he had spoken with the owner shortly before I walked in around 10:50pm, and confirmed the ANTI-DHS POLICY REMAINED IN EFFECT."

The aforementioned statement from Nick Sortor indicates the early reports are correct
The property owner made the cancellation decision and the local hilton staff complied. Due violations of the franchise agreement, there are indications that Hilton is cancelling the franchise agreement.

If so, then hilton is taking the correct steps to rectify the situation and congratulations to Hilton.

Additionally, the property owner is going to have to spend considerable money when he finds a new property manager to change decor, etc to match the new property manager requirements.

Looks like the property owner is going to be out 3-6 months of revenue plus rehab expense. Not the smartest move on the owners part. If the property owner has co-owners, then he likely created a liability to those other co-owners.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless he wishes to house illegal aliens under a state contract, or, perhaps, already is. In Massachusetts we call these Healy hotels.

This is also a serious breach of contract issue, in that the federal government (and large corporations) have a existing contract where their people are housed for a set price, less than list price, and the government is billed directly. That contract has been breached and if DHS wishes to push it, they could get a good chunk of change out of both the franchisee and Hilton itself.

Depending on Which way Hilton itself goes on this, they may make a business decision not to do so, but they could.

[not guilty]

"This is also a serious breach of contract issue, in that the federal government (and large corporations) have a existing contract where their people are housed for a set price, less than list price, and the government is billed directly. That contract has been breached and if DHS wishes to push it, they could get a good chunk of change out of both the franchisee and Hilton itself."

The measure of damages would be the difference, if any, between the contracted rate and the cost of finding substitute accommodations. But only if the latter exceeded the former.

[Joe_dallas]

Publius
See my comment below -
The property owner is the one that screwed himself, not Hilton.

[John 4]

Don’t forget M&M’s!

[David Nieporent]

Tricia McLaughlin makes Joseph Goebbels look like George Washington. If she said it, we know with 100% certainty that it's not true. It's people like her make me wish I believed in the Christian god so I could look forward to her eternal damnation.

And Nick Sortor? LOL.

[santamonica811]

Come on David, be fair.

I didn't believe what Nick was saying. But then I saw all those words in all-caps, and it changed my mind. He wouldn't have used ALL THOSE WORDS if what he was writing were not true.

When I'm judging a case in Small Claims Court; I always rule for the party that is screaming at me. "Loudest party wins!!!" has always been my judicial motto. [shhh....don't tell anyone this; it's my secret sauce in judging]

[hobie]

"you can't deny service to a class of people?"

Heh. Too easy. I'll keep scrolling.

[Estragon]

[Estragon]

“you can't deny service to a class of people?”

I think you are missing a key concept here. The people who you are linking seem to get it, at least.

[John 4]

You could fill an entire flight to CECOT with the things these kids don’t know.

[ThePublius]

"When Denial is Illegal Discrimination
Discriminatory Basis: Denying entry because the person is a government employee, or for reasons like their race, disability, gender, or religion."

[hobie]

"or for reasons like their race, disability, gender, or religion."

Can anyone name the protected class 'ol Publius forgot to include?

Quit with the softballs today, Pubes.

[John 4]

Source

[Dr. Ed 2]

The source would be in each individual states in keeper law statutes, every state has them and a date back to the days where each town only had one in and hence had to accept all well-behaved travelers with ability to pay.

[ThePublius]

Google:

"Why it's a Problem:
Discrimination: Denying service based on government affiliation (especially federal law enforcement) can be viewed as discrimination against a protected class, similar to race or national origin, creating legal liability.
Public Accommodation Laws: Hotels are places of public accommodation and cannot generally deny service without a valid, non-discriminatory reason, as per laws like the Civil Rights Act.
Federal Contracts: Hotels relying on government contracts (like GSA rates) can face scrutiny or lose eligibility if they discriminate. "

[John 4]

Google is the source? Lol

[David Nieporent]

Remind me when ChatGPT passed the bar exam?

[not guilty]

"Discriminatory Basis: Denying entry because the person is a government employee, or for reasons like their race, disability, gender, or religion."

What is your authority for the "government employee" claim?

[ThePublius]

So hobie, Estragon, John 4, are you saying that you support this hotel's cancelling of reservations of DHS agents?

As a minimum, that's a breach of contract; they have a government rate, via contract, and the rooms were booked, and then cancelled for no reason other than they don't like DHS.

[hobie]

No, I don't support it. Like I said at the time when that dumb restaurant in DC denied Sarah Huckabee and here entourage food and service: regardless who they are, these are hungry (or sleepy) people and need to be served. It's why I so vehemently oppose denying food and bathrooms to gays. It's incredibly inhumane.

All of it is Jim Crow in my book.

[ThePublius]

Well, that's good to hear. But when was the last time you heard of gays being denied food and bathrooms? (Seems like a red herring to me.)

[hobie]

Oy vey!

[Estragon]

I am trying to help you understand the law a little bit better. It has nothing to do with my feelings about DHS or Hilton Hotels.

As I said— the material you yourself linked to does seem to get it, at least:

“Look, Hilton is a private company. It can deny service to ICE agents. It’s the company’s right.

It’s also the right of others to lash out.”

I think you skipped straight to lashing out…?

[ThePublius]

"“Look, Hilton is a private company. It can deny service to ICE agents. It’s the company’s right.

It’s also the right of others to lash out.”"

I don't agree with that. The government has a contract with Hilton, and they accepted the reservations, which are legally contracts. So, it's at least breach of contract, and may, indeed, be a form of discrimination.

[hobie]

If they had a contract, then, yes, they are in breach. But Estragon is correct, unless government workers are a protected class, Hilton can -legally - deny them or anyone.

[Estragon]

Hobie, you’re no fun

[Joe_dallas]

It was the property owner that cancelled the reservations, Not Hilton.

Hilton is the property manager, not the owner. Reports are that Hilton is cancelling the franchise agreement with the property owner which means the property owner is going to go 3-6 months with out a property manager (assuming he can now find one). That is 3-6 months without revenue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Hobie.

Innkeeper law evolved out of the common law of centuries ago, and is now reflected in state law. Essentially any traveler who is well behaved, not a threat to the public, and has the ability to pay must be accommodated if you have space.

Do not confuse this with anti-discrimination law and Heart of Atlanta, this predates that and applies to any traveler and was a necessity in a time when each town only had one inn and a traveler would have no place else to go for food or shelter for the cold.

The flipside of this are protections against not payment, which other merchants don’t enjoy. The next time you’re in a hotel, read the plaque on the back of the door to your room.

Remember too that hotels and restaurants are licensed by the state and or its subdivisions, i.e. towns. Part of the requirements of getting a license is promising to serve the public as a whole with the aforementioned exceptions. Remember that this is not a private club where you would have the rights you suggest.

[hobie]

I watch plenty of body cam videos. Whether its a plane or hotel, if you bring disorderly conduct or affect their business operations, they can kick your ass out. ICE may be lovely guests, but they may or may not be bringing weapons into the place contrary to guest policy.

But more importantly, they'll bring a sea of protestors which will negatively affect the hotel and all its remaining guests.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so the heckler's veto applies here?

[hobie]

Just pretend the hotel is a gigantic bar and ICE are a bunch of Bud Lights. You wouldn't want to go to that Hilton if they're serving Bud Lights...would you? A little protest might run that gigantic bar out of business or, in the least, stop it from serving all them damn Bud Lights.

[Estragon]

“I don't agree with that.”

That is really great for you, and somewhat apparent from your comments. Whose do you think is the more accurate view of the current state of the law? The material you linked to? Or the other material you googled in the last 15 minutes?

Of course it is discrimination in some sense. But you need to take the next logical step here. I know you can do it.

[ThePublius]

The case here is that they agents had reservations, and they were later cancelled for no other reason that they are ICE agents. As I said, this is at least a breach of contract.

[John 4]

You said it was discrimination based on protected classes, because you’re an idiot who is trying to work his argument out in real time (as usual).

[Estragon]

It’s kind of fun to try and predict what he’s googling between each response.

[Estragon]

Wow, we sure retreated quickly from “assiduously prosecuted”.

IF there is an enforceable contract and IF the events you described accurately constitute breach THEN perhaps there could be damages. I would guess nominal, but perhaps the agreements provide for more.

Have you reviewed the relevant contracts? Can you provide a link?

[ThePublius]

"Have you reviewed the relevant contracts? Can you provide a link?"

Oh, give me a break! There is incontrovertible evidence that they had reservations as shown by the Hilton email cancelling them. And, there's a government rate, which is a contract, too.

If you want the exact contracts do you own research, rather than throw flak at me.

[Estragon]

You could have just said “no, I’m going off of twitter, some reporting, and my own feelings about what I think contract law involves.”

We all already knew that to be the case— there’s really no need to get all huffy.

“Incontrovertible evidence.”

I want you to stop and think for a second about what you are describing as incontrovertible evidence. To make this statement in the same post in which you admit you haven’t actually seen any of the contracts that you are claiming were breached is impressive (not in a good way).

Contract law is hard and takes more work than googling and vibes. I think you should stick to online outrage and boycotts— it takes way way less effort and you seem well suited to it. That’s why I brought up Cracker Barrel.

[ThePublius]

I don't get the Cracker Barrel reference. I never patronize them, and I could not care less what they do or say.

[Estragon]

“I could not care less what they do or say.”

Oh, ok. Because at one point you seemed like you sort of cared because you said this:

“They hired some woke chick as their marketing person, and she's remaking CB according to her views, and lying about what the customers asked for. She's full of shit and will ruin this brand and business, just like that jerk who wrecked Bud Lite.”

It was this that I was referencing. You seem better suited to this kind of content than talking about breach.

“Now I want to go eat there.”

Never got around to it, eh? It sort of defeats the point of the boycott if you don’t patronize them after they meet your demands.

[jb]

They terminated the contract before the government paid anything. Therefore the government is entitled to...nothing as damages for the cancellation.

It's good to see you coming in as an advocate for consumer rights, though. It would be great if hotels generally had to be accountable for honoring reservations once they're made. But if you do a basic Internet search for either hotel overbooking or cancellations made during big events like the Superbowl or F1 races in order to jack up rates, you'll see that consumers have basically no legal recourse when hotels cancel their reservations.

[ThePublius]

"They terminated the contract before the government paid anything."

How do you know that?

[jb]

Because they got the e-mails before they got to the hotel and government rates don't require pre-payment.

Even if they had prepaid, all the hotel would need to do is refund their money. Just like if an airline cancels your flight, they don't actually need to get you to your destination. Most of the full service airlines will try pretty hard, but if you're flying Frontier or Spirit there's a good chance you'll just be given a refund and told "good luck!"

[ThePublius]

Sometimes the feds book blocks of rooms and pay in advance. Private industry does this, too. I just don't know what happened here, and I don't think you do, either.

Be that as it may, it's still very wrong.

[jb]

Do you think it's wrong when hotels do it to normal people, or do you think ICE deserves special treatment that you and I don't get?

Like I said above, I'd actually be totally fine with stronger protections for consumers here that could extend to government bookings as well. It's just weird that MAGAs always seem to hate regulations of business right up until they get in the way of government thugs harassing brown people.

[Sarcastr0]

::Third Amendment dusts itself off::

[ThePublius]

They are not at all equivalent! I have had hotel reservations canceled for exigent circumstances, but never because of who I am or who employs me. These rooms were canceled specifically because they were DHS employees. No exigent circumstances.

[jb]

But hotels COULD cancel your reservation for any non-protected reason at all, including just that they want you to pay more money. There's no law preventing them from doing so, just as there's no law preventing them from cancelling ICE's reservation.

The fact that you want to protect ICE and not normal citizens is weird.

And not for nothing, maybe the hotel owner thinks it's an exigent circumstance to have a lot of people protesting outside of their hotel and keeping the other guests awake.

[bernard11]

The government has a contract with Hilton, and they accepted the reservations, which are legally contracts. So, it's at least breach of contract, and may, indeed, be a form of discrimination.

Seems to me that lots of hotel reservations, contracts or not, include cancellation clauses. So it may be that there was no breach.

[David Nieporent]

So hobie, Estragon, John 4, are you saying that you support this hotel's cancelling of reservations of DHS agents?

I support every hotel cancelling of reservations of DHS agents. I think everyone who still is willing to work for that agency is a disgrace to humanity who ought to be shunned from polite society forever, or at least until they've done years of penance.

As a minimum, that's a breach of contract;

What contract do you think this particular hotel franchisee has with the government?

[not guilty]

"As a minimum, that's a breach of contract; they have a government rate, via contract, and the rooms were booked, and then cancelled for no reason other than they don't like DHS."

How do you claim to know that the cost of finding substitute accommodations exceeded the contract rate? If not, there would be no contract damages.

[ThePublius]

So, I was wrong in assuming that government employees were a class that couldn't be discriminated agains. Perhaps they should be, especially federal law enforcement.

It's still obviously wrong that this hotel did, and compounded by lying about it after their apology.

I've read that Hilton has removed them from their system, but they didn't specifically say if they were pulling the franchise. Maybe they will after they sort out the legal issues.

[Estragon]

“So, I was wrong”

Big of you to admit. Got some better hits off of google, I assume?

Here’s a fun exercise for you to try next time. Google FIRST, before you post. You might like it!

[ThePublius]

O.K., don't rub it in! 🙂

[Estragon]

I’m not rubbing anything in. I’m giving you some advice that might help you look like less of a boob in the future. On the other hand, looking ridiculous doesn’t seem to concern you so actually keep doing what you’re doing. It’s instructive to others when you rake-step like this.

[Estragon]

“after they sort out the legal issues”

What legal issues are you anticipating arising?

[ThePublius]

I am thinking about the franchise agreement, and what the terms and conditions of that contract might be. It certainly addresses cancelation (I would think).

[Estragon]

Oh I see, well yes that is possible. I thought you meant “assiduous prosecution.”

[ThePublius]

That was between DHS and Hilton, not Hilton and the franchisee.

[Estragon]

“between DHS and Hilton”

I thought I explained (some of) the reasons that was dumb

[David Nieporent]

What I don't understand is that, aren't hotels place of public accommodation, and you can't deny service to a class of people?

No. "ICE agent" is not a protected class. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[not guilty]

"What I don't understand is that, aren't hotels place of public accommodation, and you can't deny service to a class of people? I think that if they've broken the law here, civil rights law, they should be assiduously prosecuted. The feds should cancel all contracts with Hilton and not allow government employees to stay in Hilton properties on government business. Take them off the approved vendor list."

Yes, hotels are places of public accommodation. However, federal government employees are not a class of persons protected by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states in relevant part:

42 U.S.C. §2000a(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. [Emphasis added.]

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

One rule of parsing statutes is don't attempt to do so with your head up your ass.

[Malika la Maize]

“Ultimately,” the coach continued, “and this is y’all’s job, not my job, but there needs to be an evaluation of this narrative of the SEC is these big, bad m————, because they’re getting their asses whipped in these games.”

Is that true?

Yes. The Playoff semifinals on Jan. 8 and Jan. 9 feature two Big Ten teams (Indiana and Oregon), one ACC team (Miami) and one SEC team (Ole Miss). More broadly across bowl games, the “It Just Means More” conference is at the bottom of the Power 4 leagues in records, trailing the Big Ten (9-4), the ACC (8-4) and the Big 12 (4-4). In bowl games through this weekend, the SEC is 2-7 against teams from other conferences. The SEC team was favored in seven of those nine games. The SEC is 4-9 overall.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6938399/2026/01/04/sec-football-bowl-records-nil-transfer-portal/

[SRG2]

Any further threats against Denmark in the last 24 hours? I: don't know who first planted the idea of invading Greenland in Trump's head but he's clearly fixated on it. There is not the remotest legal, constitutional or moral case to be made for an invasion, but there is certainly a legal case for the Danes to respond by killing Trump - which I would regard as both moral and legal if an invasion is attempted.

[ThePublius]

Well, the history of the world is of governments or kingdoms taking over others' territory. How do you think Denmark got Greenland? And international law exists to preserve the status quo, not necessarily what's right and just. Greenland is still not independent regarding defence or foreign affairs. So I would not object to the U.S. stepping in and telling Denmark "we'll take this from here." Note that Denmark has ignored Greenland in many respects for years. They would prosper more under U.S. control, and we could couple it with a plan for full independence for Greenland in the near future.

[DDHarriman]

Hey, you forget their foundational premise.

Trump * -1 = their policy stance

[SRG2]

So you too would approve of the US's invading Greenland?

[DDHarriman]

I would approve of the US acquiring Greenland as a territory or some other protected status.

The Artic is vital to national security and of great strategic importance.

[SRG2]

Greenland is still not independent regarding defence or foreign affairs. So I would not object to the U.S. stepping in and telling Denmark "we'll take this from here."

So the US should invade the territory of a NATO ally because you think the US could run it better.

we could couple it with a plan for full independence for Greenland in the near future.

LOL. Do you seriously think that this would be the outcome?

I notice you don't pay any attention to what the people of Greenland themselves might want.

[ThePublius]

"So the US should invade the territory of a NATO ally because you think the US could run it better."

Now, did I say that? No. I said we should take it over. The motivation is our national defense, our vital national interest, which I didn't explicitly mention as I was sure it was part of the context.

"we could couple it with a plan for full independence for Greenland in the near future.

LOL. Do you seriously think that this would be the outcome?"

Uh, yes, I do.

"I notice you don't pay any attention to what the people of Greenland themselves might want."

Nor does Greenland, as far as I can tell.

"Desire for Independence: A clear majority of Greenlanders, about 84% in a January 2025 poll, support the idea of independence from Denmark. The current Greenlandic government is actively working on the path to self-determination, including a commission to define the terms of a future referendum."

Did you know that Denmark carried out a forced contraception campaign against Inuit women from 1960 to 1991? That's really caring for how Greenlanders feel, eh? [1]

"Mixed Historical Feelings: The relationship is a product of a colonial history that, while bringing modern health and education, also inflicted serious wrongs within living memory, such as a controversial forced contraceptive campaign in the 1960s and 70s. These historical issues fuel the desire for self-determination and contribute to a complex relationship where some Greenlanders feel a lack of understanding or even face racism from some Danes." [emphasis mine]

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/denmark-to-compensate-thousands-of-indigenous-women-and-girls-in-greenland-over-forced-contraception

[DDHarriman]

There are no facts in existence that will move them.

[Bob from Ohio]

1. Pay Denmark X dollars. We bought the Virgin Islands, so there is "precedent".
2. Pay each Greenlander Y dollars to vote yes on a referendum. Pay for their air fare, first class, back to Denmark if they want.
3. Give them Associated States status, like some Pacific islands. Better than territory but still under US control.

[SRG2]

That's a far better solution than invasion.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're the one constantly using the term "invasion".

[SRG2]

Seizure, whatever. Trump wants to grab Greenland one way or another, it seems, and how do you think he'd grab Greenland? By the pussy?

[santamonica811]

Okay, I did laugh at that one.

[SRG2]

Uh, yes, I do.

Right. After Trump will have imposed treaty obligations, like any good Mafia Don extorting a business. You think Trump will risk Greenland's going independent and then tearing up the treaty?

You should get XY to explain to you how this business works. He seems to think he understands how this stuff goes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So the US should invade the territory of a NATO ally..."

We'll call it Angle-geld.

[Commenter_XY]

Nations have interests, not morals. You are old enough to know better.

[SRG2]

And people run nations. Are you putting a marker down to win the Max Naumann award for 2026?

[Krayt]

Invading Greenland, part of NATO, violating signed treaties, and risking, however unlikely, retaliation from the rest of NATO, would finally be a real, impeachable defense.

If only politically motivated opposition hadn't cried wolf twice. Filthy, 100% contrarian, hyperbolating, faceting power mongers, deliberate, knowing frauds. This means you, you know who you are.

So here we are.

Of course it will be financial, per Greenlandians and for Denmark.

If Greenland votes, though, sigh, this is a constitution-level change, and should be supermajority. Are you listening simple-majority EU buffoons?

[DDHarriman]

Why are the NY Revolutionaries talking about taking over housing and making it government for equity reasons, while the current government run housing are the worst slums in the tri-state area?

Do they wish the same lowered standard of living and severely reduced quality of life upon everyone? Is that their goal?

Surely they can see how bad their own government run housing already is, right? Why don't they fix that first with their revolutionary policies?

[Jerry B.]

But this time, they'll do it right.

[SRG2]

Hypocrisy - to oppose NY taking over housing while approving of Trump taking over an entire country.

[Mr. Bumble]

You give new meaning to fuckwit (H/T you).

[SRG2]

Yes - according to your contextual definition, fuckwit can also mean someone who makes an inarguable point that you don't like.

[DDHarriman]

Surely you're not this stupid. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Can you expand on your argument with some details and examples?

[jb]

Surely they can see how bad their own government run housing already is, right? Why don't they fix that first with their revolutionary policies?

Once again, a 30 second Internet search would probably save you a lot of heartburn. From Mamdani's page on housing policy:

Recommit to public housing. Federal, state, and city disinvestment have left NYCHA tenants with crumbling buildings and uncertain futures. Zohran will double the City’s capital investment in major renovations of NYCHA housing, activate underutilized storage areas like parking lots for affordable housing development, and use tools like City subsidies to invest money directly in upgrading our public housing... Zohran will also push Albany to make a similar commitment to NYCHA’s capital needs on an annual basis.

[Michael P]

The doubled budget will come from the magic money machine. And this time it will work, because a sudden flood of government money always has the intended result. Just look at Minnesota's program to feed poor kids!

[jb]

DDHarriman asks why Mamdani doesn't propose to do anything about existing NYCHA housing stock. I point out that he does propose to do something. If you don't think he should do anything, take it up with DDHarriman.

And unlike Republicans, Mamdani also proposes how to pay for his plans. Specifically, with some tax increases.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I quickly finished reading The Princess Bride with a 30th Anniversary introduction and the first chapter of a supposed sequel.

The overall conceit of the book is that William Goldman merely abridged an old non-fiction account. His father supposedly skipped all the boring parts (the book turned out to be a really long satire).

Goldman takes this conceit rather far, including inviting readers to ask the publisher for a special scene, which later led to supposed legal problems. The most recent edition includes an account of Goldman taking his grandson to a museum with relics from the story & news that Stephen King (Goldman wrote multiple screenplays based on King works) has Florine heritage.

The original book largely mirrors the film, except for some stuff involving Buttercup's parents and a zoo of death set up to provide the prince (a big hunter) with a convenient way to kill animals. Buttercup doesn't have much more to do in the original.

The "sequel" chapter provides details about what happened right after the end of the original story, including the birth of a baby. It ends with a cliffhanger. It also has a Peter Falk/Fred Savage feel since now Goldman is a grandfather telling the story to his grandson. I don't think the new bits add much.

[hobie]

Venezuela Braces for Economic Collapse From U.S. Blockade

"Venezuela could lose the bulk of its oil export revenues this year if the U.S. blockade stays in place, according to internal government estimates, a scenario that would set off a humanitarian crisis."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/06/world/americas/venezuela-us-blockade-economy-oil.html

China buys the bulk of Venezuelan heavy crude, followed by the US and Cuba. The rest of the world simply doesn't have refineries geared towards processing heavy crude. But we do.

So we block all sales to Cuba and China...or we don't...doesn't matter. The net result is an influx of cheap foreign crude into the US tanking our domestic per barrel prices. You wanna know what happens to domestic energy companies and production because of that?

[DDHarriman]

Won't someone please think of the illegal oil smugglers smuggling VEN oil to our country's enemies in violation of international sanctions?!?!!?

[hobie]

You idiot. China isn't under any oil sanctions. They can buy as they please from the 70% of Venezuelan output that isn't Chevron...using legal ships. Unless we've seized the assets and oil of all entities not related to Chevron...which would make us a mafia state and basically make us what we've accused Venezuela of being.

[DDHarriman]

You low information boob. Only sanctioned freighters are being stopped. Not all oil tankers.

Either you are deliberately lying about this, or you're fucking dumb as shit on this topic.

[ThePublius]

They already have a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela! I mean, as recently as 2018 they were eating zoo animals and their pets! I don't think it's gotten much better since then.

"It is not only Venezuela’s zoo animals that have suffered. Footage emerged in January 2018 of a crowd of people stoning a cow to death in an open field, hacking at it with machetes when it fell. There have been dozens of incidents in the state of Merida of cows being slaughtered in a similar way. In 2015, a kilogram of meat cost more than 40% of the average person’s monthly wage. Venezuela’s price control regime has meant that the costs of basic items is spiralling out of control, which is why people are turning to unconventional sources of meat to sustain themselves.

Yet another sign of the suffering in Venezuela is the situation faced by domestic pets. El Nacional reports that the cost of basic pet food as well as vaccines has forced owners to abandon their animals. Families who leave the country have to leave their pets behind. The high cost of dog food due to price controls and difficulty importing goods from abroad have pushed families to abandon their pets, which in some cases have become meat for a desperate population."

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/venezuela-campaign-the-tragedy-of-failing-zoos-and-starving-strays

"Venezuela's poverty is extreme and widespread, with recent data (late 2024/early 2025) indicating over 90% of the population lives in poverty, with more than half in extreme poverty, driven by economic mismanagement, hyperinflation, corruption, and sanctions, leading to food insecurity, low wages (often <$1/day), and mass displacement, creating a complex humanitarian crisis with millions needing aid and seeking refuge abroad."

Almost 1/3 of the population has left since 2014. Think about that.

"Over 7.9 million Venezuelans have left their country since 2014, making it one of the world's largest displacement crises, with the majority (around 6.9 million) resettling in other Latin American and Caribbean nations due to economic collapse, violence, and lack of essential services. Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador host large numbers of these migrants and refugees."

[hobie]

Oh my God...what is with you today? Have you gone full Lib?

Using the might of America to fight poverty...no vaccines...?!

Besides, that's what USAID is for........................oops.

[ThePublius]

"Using the might of America to fight poverty"

Indirectly, so. Help people have self-determination, and eliminate an extremely corrupt government, and let them rebuild their country. Venezuela was once, not too long ago, the wealthiest country in South America. Now they are reduced to eating zoo animals. That's literally true. Can you imagine? Can you imagine eating your neighbor's abandoned dog, abandoned because they could not afford, or acquire, dog food, and you can't afford or find an alternate protein source? That's scraping the bottom of poverty.

[hobie]

Great! I'm all for it. Let's make all of sub-Saharan Africa next!

Instead of bombing everyone, if Trump want's to eradicate poverty, he's got my vote...he'd also get a legit peace prize too.

[ThePublius]

We should develop a 2,000 lb. beef bomb, and bomb them back into good nutrition.

[DDHarriman]

Why do you think Africa hasn't been able to pull out of it's poverty even the trillions in aid dumped into it?

Is it because the leaders are all black? That's my guess. hbu? It seems pretty obvious that the way to eradicate poverty in Africa is to recolonize it and put Whites in charge.

Compare Orania with the rest of Africa. A practical paradise.

[hobie]

Orania? Is that kinda like Wakanda?

[DDHarriman]

Except it's White and it's real. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/24/an-indictment-of-south-africa-whites-only-town-orania-is-booming

Wakanda could never exist. Because of, well, you know...

... it wouldn't be any different than any other failed black state or city.

[John F. Carr]

A candidate for governor of California says he will revoke driver's licenses of ICE officers who wear masks. This will cause no end of trouble. As governor he will need to have a conversation with his Attorney General to see if the trouble is worth the attention it brings him. There are two basic problems:

1. Federal employees are not bound by state laws that get in the way of their duties. For example, the Ninth Circuit recently decided Oregon's law against running over bicyclists doesn't apply to DEA agents who want to keep pace with other agents. ICE agents can drive without a license if that is department policy.

2. Retaliation against federal agents for doing their jobs won't hold up in court. California proposes to punish ICE agents in their private lives for actions taken as government employees.

California agreed not to enforce the masking law while a lawsuit against it proceeds.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5670182-california-swalwell-immigration-masks/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71921382/united-states-v-state-of-california/

[Bob from Ohio]

Eric Swalwell. LOL

[John F. Carr]

If you want to laugh at gubernatorial candidates, try this one from Massachusetts:

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/01/05/criminal-justice-advocate-andrea-james-plans-independent-gubernatorial-run

"[Andrea] James, 61, who spent two years in federal prison for wire fraud and was disbarred, confirmed her plans to run in a message to WBUR Monday morning."

She looks like a standard liberal except she wants to replace prisons with "humane, effective solutions rooted in healing and accountability."

[Commenter_XY]

WTH is in the water? Lead? She sounds like an AWFL on steroids.

[Bob from Ohio]

She's a nut with zero chance

Swalwell is a nut with a decent chance.

[John F. Carr]

Trump isn't the only champion of protectionist tariffs. Reuters reports: "EU steel safeguards would lead to crippling price hikes for manufacturing, lobby group says". "The European Commission has proposed cutting tariff-free steel import quotas by almost half and a 50% duty for excess shipments in a bid to preserve viable steelmaking in the EU."

[DDHarriman]

Why doesn't the EU understand that this tariff is just a tax on it's own citizens and provides literally zero benefit - like American Democrats do?

[John F. Carr]

Politico dug through dockets to see how judges were treating the Trump administration's policy of detaining substantially all removable aliens.

A POLITICO review of thousands of federal dockets reveals the starkly lopsided results for the Trump administration: While 308 judges have ruled against the administration’s mass detention policy — ordering release or bond hearings in more than 1,600 cases — just 14 judges, including 11 appointed by President Donald Trump himself, have sided with the administration’s position. Even Trump’s appointees have rejected the administration’s view; 33 have ruled against its position on mass detention.

Appeals courts are not treating these cases as urgent, possibly because they are individual actions based on individual sets of facts. Precedential decisions on the policy may be months away. For now, an order requiring that José be released to await a hearing does not mean María must be released, even if their circumstances are indistinguishable.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494

[DDHarriman]

Democrats are protecting our sacred voting rights just like they protected our nations treasury.

Rampant fraud.

https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/other-ways-to-vote/vote-early-by-mail/

To vote by mail, apply to have an absentee ballot mailed to you. You do not need to be registered to apply.

Don't forget 1 US Citizen can "vouch" for 8 others who don't have any legal ID.

And a residence hall employee can "vouch" for an unlimited number of voters who don't have any legal ID.

---
Totally trust worthy and sacred elections!!!

[jb]

To vote by mail, apply to have an absentee ballot mailed to you. You do not need to be registered to apply.

Uhh, yeah. That's because if you're not registered they send out a registration form along with the ballot.

Try on some critical thinking skills at some point, man, instead of just regurgitating random shit you get spoon-fed online. This took me 30 seconds to figure out after reading your post.

[DDHarriman]

Can you explain how that makes it better?

[jb]

Is that a serious question?

To the best of my knowledge, you're allowed to register to vote by mail in all 50 states. So sending people a voter registration form at the same time you send them an absentee ballot saves the government a stamp and has absolutely zero effect on election integrity.

You originally seemed to imply that you could vote by mail without registering, which is wrong and it would have been easy for you to figure that out yourself. If you were trying to make a different point, you did a bad job of it. But let me know, and I'm sure I'll be able to explain why whatever it is was also dumb.

[DDHarriman]

>To the best of my knowledge, you're allowed to register to vote by mail in all 50 states.

Given that's not true, the rest of your statements are not really worth paying attention to.

Sorry, get your shit together before taking on the Internet Champ.

[jb]

I'm open to being educated. Do you have an example of a state where you can't register to vote by mail?

Here's a handy site to help you figure it out:

https://vote.gov/register

You can usually even register to vote online, even!

[ThePublius]

Well, just checked one. New Hampshire. No online registration. No registration by mail. And this I learned on the site you linked.

Same for Wyoming.

[jb]

New Hampshire does allow registration by mail, but only if you have a reason (like being out of town). I'd imagine this is roughly the same set of reasons as qualify you for being eligible for an absentee ballot.

Wyoming definitely allows registration by mail:

You can use Wyoming’s mail-in registration form to register for local, state, and national elections for the first time or update your registration with a new name or address, and for some states, political party.

You’ll need to print the form, fill it out, and mail it to your state election office. You’ll need access to a printer and a postage stamp.

Regardless, I don't think if you edit my statement above to "almost all states" instead of "all 50 states" it changes the overall logic. What's the thing we're supposed to be worrying about here?

[ducksalad]

Sorry about essentially duplicating your response. Didn't refresh the page before clicking Submit.

[ducksalad]

In Wyoming, the Secretary of State thinks you can register by mail:

If you cannot register in person at any of your county's locations, you may register by mail. The following items are required when mailing in your registration application to your county clerk's office

https://sos.wyo.gov/elections/state/registeringtovote.aspx

---
In NH, I think it would be more accurate to say most people can't register by mail, however you can if you have an acceptable reason:

https://www.sos.nh.gov/elections/register-vote/absentee-voter-registration

[DDHarriman]

Do you see how embarrassing it is to try and go toe-to-toe with an acknowledged Internet Champ when you're as low-information, incapable & insufficient as you appear to be?

[DDHarriman]

When you read your link did you notice these phrases:

>Most states offer online registration

In your mind, does "most" mean "all"?

>Register by mail: You can download and print the National Mail Voter Registration Form for use in every state except New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Ok, as far as you understand the American language, does "in every state except" mean all states?

Is that why you provided a link that refuted your own claim, yet presented as if it supported your claim? Because you don't understand American language?

[jb]

Hey Champ, let me help you out a little

At no point did I claim that you could register online in all states. I said "usually" which most people would probably interpret to be the same as "most".

As for mail-in voting, North Dakota doesn't require voters to register at all*, and Wisconsin and Wyoming allow mail-in registration, they just use their own forms. New Hampshire seems to be the only state that doesn't generally allow mail-in registration, although they do allow it for roughly the same circumstances as absentee voting. So technically my original statement was correct, all 50 states do allow mail-in voting, but I'll be generous to you today and admit that most people in New Hampshire can't do it.

So let's replace my "all 50 states" claim with "49 out of 50 states", or even 48 if you want to exclude North Dakota. This doesn't meaningfully change my original point at all. Minnesota allowing voters to get their registration form at the same time as their absentee ballot saves the government a stamp, and doesn't affect election integrity at all.

* It seems like if you were going to worry about election integrity, North Dakota not requiring voter registration would be more concerning than Minnesota sending you a registration form in the mail.

[Michael P]

Can we come together across partisan lines to marvel at the nut known as Tucker Carlson?

Tucker Carlson believes it’s a “distinct possibility” that the U.S. captured Maduro to *checks notes* “bring gay marriage to Venezuela.”

(emphases removed)

https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/2008040313240289705

[DDHarriman]

If Venezuela becomes pro-homo/anti-family then I will never vote for President Trump again.

[santamonica811]

Intentionally or not; your response was funny on so many levels. (I genuinely don't know if the humour was intended, if the sarcasm was real, etc.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Wait until you find out abortions have increased since Roe was overturned!! 😉

[jb]

I'm going to guess that some of the MAGAs here are not going to think this is nutty.

But yeah, it seems particularly dumb. Carlson is, of course, an actual isolationist, so is going to have a reflexive dislike of Trump's intervention. But this seems like a particularly lame attack on it, especially since it relies on the idea that the Venezuelan opposition is US-backed despite the fact that Trump has been supporting the remainder of the incumbent administration and basically ignoring opposition leadership like Machado and Gonzalez.

[Estragon]

Yeah, tough needle to thread— democracy sounds nice but turns people gay. It appears this administration has instead chosen to side with the socialist Chavistas which I’m certain comes as a great shock to someone like Steven Miller, who must be dismayed that the socialism he rails against constantly is finding succor within the very halls of power he inhabits!

[santamonica811]

"...democracy sounds nice but turns people gay...."

Why is this slogan not on t-shirts and bumper stickers and being sold at Republican events?!? Or, at least, on Q-Anon-type websites?

[Estragon]

You seem like a sporting fellow. How about a wager. I’ll lay one internet ducat on the proposition that we will actually hear something akin to this— meant seriously as part of a justification to abandon elections— before the end of the current administration.

[hobie]

HaHa! I KNEW it had to be either enrich the Trump Clan or else revenge. It's revenge!

An insider birdie who was present, has told us that Energy Secretary Chris Wright (who has a substantial stake in Chevron, BTW) had told a closed door meeting of industry honchos (a meeting that no one will every hear about), that part of the Venezuelan strategy is to reduce American reliance on Canadian tar sands.

Pesky, non-compliant, 51st state Canada just won't bend the knee. Revenga!

[ThePublius]

Anonymous sources. Gotcha.

[hobie]

To you and everyone else, yes, completely anonymous. If you think I'm naming names, you're crazy.

[Michael P]

"a meeting that no one will ever[] hear about"

Are you high?

[John F. Carr]

Ten people have been convicted of cyber-bulling for saying that Emmanuel Macron's wife is a man and calling him a pedophile for having a much younger wife. One defendant was sentenced to serve six months.

https://www.reuters.com/world/ten-people-convicted-online-harassment-frances-first-lady-brigitte-macron-2026-01-05/

[jb]

Does anyone know what constitutes cyber bullying in France? Is libeling someone enough, or does there have to be more to it? The article doesn't seem to provide much detail.

[OpinionsVary]

> "calling him a pedophile for having a much younger wife"

Other way around. They were calling *her* the pedophile, since she is older than Macron (by 24 years) and was at one point his school teacher. The official account is they started dating after Macron graduated but the truth is at least muddier than that.

[John F. Carr]

Oops. As an American I have trouble imagining a powerful man with an older woman.

[John 4]

lol.

“Donald Trump has suggested US taxpayers could reimburse energy companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure for extracting and shipping oil.

Trump acknowledged that “a lot of money” would need to be spent to increase oil production in Venezuela after US forces ousted its leader, Nicolás Maduro, but suggested his government could pay oil companies to do the work.

“A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” the president said.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/trump-us-taxpayers-oil-firms-venezuela-investment

[jb]

But all the MAGAs have been telling us about how this is not like Iraq at all in that it's actually really good for Americans (for reasons that so far no one has been able to actually articulate).

[DDHarriman]

Why do you complain and bellyache when I use broad terms like "Da Joos" or "Beluga-head Somalians", while you commit the exact same "sin"?

[jb]

Because (most) Jews and Somalis are born into that category, and therefore don't all behave the same way.

MAGAs, on the other had, have chosen a set of beliefs that they almost always align to. This becomes especially obvious with incidents like Venezuela when there was initially some pushback and then within a day or two everyone fell in line with the official talking points.

Moreover, a cool thing about America is that we don't judge people by their race or religion, but the founders and everyone since then have been totally fine judging people for their terrible ideas.

[DDHarriman]

False.

I didn't choose to believe what I believe. My lived experience baked these beliefs into me.

It wasn't a conscience choice. I was born this way. It's immutable.

>Moreover, a cool thing about America is that we don't judge people by their race or religion, but the founders and everyone since then have been totally fine judging people for their terrible ideas.

Can I judge the subversive Jews or heterosexual cultural-appropriating gays or revolutionary anti-White blacks or global intifada Moslems for their terrible ideas?

[not guilty]

"It wasn't a conscience choice. I was born this way. It's immutable."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, DDH?

You may have been born a moron, but I doubt that you were born a bigot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPf6ITsjsgk&list=RDVPf6ITsjsgk&start_radio=1

[ReaderY]

Now that the United States has, in a short span, invaded Venezuala, asserted control over its oil resources, and threatened military action against former ally Denmark unless it hands over Greenland, I hope we can put and end to the sniveling complaints that it is somehow improper to compare Mr. Trump to Hitler.

I also hope the people who said earlier that even suggesting Trump might do these things was evidence of “Trump derangement syndrome” are enjoying their very large helping of crow.

[Bob from Ohio]

"threatened military action against former ally Denmark"

Oh? When did Trump do this?

[ReaderY]

Under the unitary executive theory, the President is solely and entirely responsible for what his administration officials say.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/06/stephen-miller-says-us-could-seize-greenland/88044075007/

[John 4]

“Seizing isn’t the same as invading, and all the references to force are just coincidence!”

[Bob from Ohio]

No Miller quote says "seize". Its the writer's language.

The unitary executive theory doesn't say what you assert either.

[John 4]

Nailed it! Thanks for being predictable.

[Bob from Ohio]

I realize accuracy is no concern of yours but do try to do better.

[ReaderY]

Hitler used a very similar approach. He had subordinates say some of the more outrageous things, especially early on. If it provoked too great a firestorm of disapproval, he would disclaim it and say he wasn’t responsible for what his subordinates said.

It’s a very effective tactic. Hitler put it to good use. Trump is emulating the best here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hitler comparison. How edgy!

[John 4]

Dude already forgot which comment thread he’s on. What kind of drugs are you doing, Bob?

[ducksalad]

Trump and the administration are also considering “a range of options” in order to acquire Greenland, including “utilizing the U.S. Military,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNBC and Reuters on Tuesday.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5675369-greenland-trump-shocking-venezuela-maduro/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Hope is a known symptom of "TDS."

[Commenter_XY]

Invasion of VEN? What invasion? Whatchubetalkinbout, ReaderY? You see any fighting in VEN? Where are the US troops of this invasion force?

US LEOs executed a warrant for Maduro (ably backed up by Delta Force members) and brought Maduro and his wife to SDNY for trial. Maduro now sits in prison, and so does his wife. Judge Alvin Hellerstein is conducting that trial. Real Hitlerian kind of stuff, right? No, I don't think so.

What has gotten POTUS Trump so animated about Greenland is a better question to ask. How important is that geography? Does that geography represent a vital US national interest?

[Josh R]

I hope you don't really think this was (just) about enforcing the law. Trump has explicitly said it's about the oil and that Cuba, Colombia, Mexico and Greenland better watch out.

The Donroe Doctrine is the USA gets whatever shit it wants in the Western Hemisphere and if you don't like it we fuck you over.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Donroe Doctrine is the USA gets whatever shit it wants in the Western Hemisphere and if you don't like it we fuck you over."

News from 1903.

Also from 1912. Also from 1915. Also from 1907, 1911, 1919, 1924 and 1925.

Also from 1965

Also from 1989.

[Bob from Ohio]

Darn, forgot 1914 and 1916 in Mexico.

[grb]

Pluto : https://x.com/MAstronomers/status/2005055593502179767?

[jb]

It's cool, but also a little weird that this pic is suddenly going around now since it's 10 years old.

[Zarniwoop]

TheOnion nails it again!

https://theonion.com/nicolas-maduro-charged-with-felony-oil-possession/

[grb]

Mike Luckovich nails it too :

https://x.com/mluckovichajc/status/2001402304688194035

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming after the state Supreme Court struck down laws that include the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills, ruling Tuesday that they violate the state constitution.

AP: "Abortion stays legal in Wyoming as its top court strikes down laws, including first US pill ban"

There is some irony that abortion rights are retained in a conservative state in this fashion. The provision was originally an anti-ACA measure.

https://boltsmag.org/abortion-access-and-measures-against-obamacare-ohio-wyoming/

The opinion can be read here:

https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/S-24-0326%20State%20v.%20Johnson%20Final.pdf

[jb]

Those Wyoming lawmakers did a great job. The language they put in the state constitution seems much closer to protecting abortion rights to however they were supposed to be pushing back on the ACA.

[John F. Carr]

The Wyoming court is not the first to observe that the rape and incest exception commonly written into abortion restrictions undermines the argument that the law is necessary to protect the unborn child. It's impossible to say if the exception really changed any judges' minds.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link to the opinions. I have read the summary, but I have not yet read the various opinions.

I am pleased that the majority of the Court applied strict scrutiny analysis.

[DDHarriman]

I did a brief historical study of this alleged "Warmth of Collectivism" and found the source of the warmth.

It's lots and lots of fresh human blood. That's what Lefty revolutionaries always produce. Historically speaking.

In the world of Rugged Individualism, revolutionary collectivists are free to form their own communities and govern as collectively as they wish.

In the world of Warm Collectivism, is the inverse also true?

[John 4]

“I did a brief historical study” — he didn’t.

[DDHarriman]

The instances of Warm Collectivism that didn't result in widespread bloodshed is notably missing from your comment.

Naturally.

[ThePublius]

Yes, he did.

[BrotherMovesOn]

ThePublius wing-manning for DDHarrinam!
I did not see that coming. ThePublius often comes across as a gullible, not very well informed but 'aw-shucks' kind of milquetoast.
Didn't see him jumping to defend a guy who has an 'Ask me what I know the Jews are up to now' bumber sticker on his car.

[DDHarriman]

I didn't mean to insult the Jews but revealing their horrors of their commie history.

My bad, Schlomo.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A day after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) resignation from Congress took effect, news broke early Tuesday that Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) had suddenly died at the age of 65. Then, more news broke that another Republican congressman, 80-year-old Jim Baird of Indiana, was in the hospital after a car crash.

Currently, that splits to 217R-213D with one R in the hospital.

There is not complete partisan loyalty (see the Epstein, anti-trans votes, for instance) and every Democrat isn't going to be available at all times, but that can cause problems.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-slim-vote-margin_n_695c123fe4b0908b04a41d6f?3w

===
‪Ted Lieu‬ (D) on Bluesky:

"Saddened to learn of the passing of Representative Doug LaMalfa. He represented his district well. I served with Doug in the California State Legislature and in Congress. My prayers are with his family and friends."

(His profile includes a reference to empathy being good.)

[Estragon]

Say what you will about Ted Lieu: he’s no Mike Lee

[Sarcastr0]

Wikipedia says the margin right now is 217R vs 213D vs a start of 219R vs 215D on the first day of trump's term.

Old Dems dying off have saved the GOP majority.

[DDHarriman]

>margin right now is 217R vs 213D vs a start of 219R vs 215D
(a fall of GOP majority by 2 seats due to GOP deaths)
vs.
>Old Dems dying off have saved the GOP majority.

Think about how reflexively partisan you are. You say that when the facts you present tells you the exact opposite reality. The GOP majority is being threatened by GOP members dying off.

Do you ever reflect on what you say?

How mush brained must you be to see GOP lose two seats from R deaths and say the GOP majority is being saved from D deaths?

Your brain is total TDS mush. Where is DOGE?

[David Nieporent]

Um, you're apparently unaware that three Democratic members of this session of Congress have died.

[DDHarriman]

So what?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I didn't do all the math, including figuring how Republicans unexpectedly resigning, dying, and an elderly Republican (they have some older members too) being in a car accident all factors in. Seems to come down to around 1 or 2 votes.

[DDHarriman]

Why is Mandami out there inspecting Warm Collectivist Rent-Controlled slums and blaming capitalism?

What sort of commie bait & switch is this? Maybe that's why he thinks collectivism is warm, he believes all of Warm Collectivist failures are because of other things.

[hobie]

ProPublica had posted a tranche of hundreds hayseed J6 videos uploaded to Parler but thought lost when the hayseed website went out of business.

It's a bunch of the usual San Francisco-style smash-and-grab stuff. But the journalists and experts that reviewed noted that while white police officers were routinely ignored, or walked around, or thanked for their service; the black officers were stalked, called racial slurs, chased, and often beaten mercilessly. This was especially true when the predominantly black reinforcements from DC Metro arrived. By then the crowd was in full animal mode and fucks were no longer being given.

Unfortunately, there were no new videos of the Saint Ashtray Babbitt incident. But I would think, by that point, even a hayseed would have to acknowledge that black officers would be feeling a bit...er...concerned for their lives.

https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-capitol-riot-what-the-parler-videos-reveal

Happy J6 everyone. Or as Trump called it...'a day of love'

[ThePublius]

"...and often beaten mercilessly."

Oh, so many lies and bullshit!

[hobie]

Videos are right there in the first link, Publius.

[DDHarriman]

What until you see the security camera footage that shows all the undercover agents in there stirring the pot.

[ducksalad]

Can any of the Greenland acquisitionists here, who mock the idea that an "invasion" would be required, lay out a realistic plan for how it happens without landing any armed forces?

Suppose we demand that a referendum on joining the US be held, and the Greenland parliament votes to not hold a referendum. Then what?

Suppose we say we don't need no stinking referenda and send a planeload of US administrators to take over. At the airport the Greenland police deny them entry. Then what?

Suppose through some unlikely combination of pressure, sanctions, threats, or arresting the Danish prime minister, we coerce the Danish parliament into ceding/selling us Greenland. The Greenlanders unilaterally declare independence. Then what?

I'd just like to hear how you think this would work. I'm not claiming that Denmark would get into a shooting war. But I don't see how you think we'd enforce our will there without any troops to make the locals obey orders.
-----

Bonus question: On the US domestic side, how does Greenland legally become part of the US?

Normally an act of Congress, but very likely three or more Republican representatives would defect. Then what?

A new executive power covered by the Magic Vesting Clause?

[Absaroka]

"I'm not claiming that Denmark would get into a shooting war."

Just FWIW, the Falklands War started when the Argentinians invaded South Georgia (that's the island in the South Pacific, not the country or the state). The defense force was a whopping 22 Royal Marines. Their orders were that they could surrender in the face of the expected overwhelming odds, but only after the actual shooting started. Britain didn't want the Argentinians to be able to claim there wasn't an actual war going on. The Marines took it to heart and shot down a helicopter.

If I was Denmark I'd issue the same orders, just so no one could claim the US had been invited.

(what makes the whole idea so silly is that we can get any basing rights we want just by asking. We've had bases there since mid-WWII. It's like your neighbor happily loans you his ladder whenever you want, and one day you go stick a gun in his face and rob him of the ladder)

[David Nieporent]

(what makes the whole idea so silly is that we can get any basing rights we want just by asking. We've had bases there since mid-WWII. It's like your neighbor happily loans you his ladder whenever you want, and one day you go stick a gun in his face and rob him of the ladder)

Remember, just as with the treatment of immigrants, The Cruelty is the Point.™ Asking wouldn't allow Trump to pretend his dick was big.

[ducksalad]

Have you read the two books by Martin Middlebrook? By chance I got the second one he wrote, from the Argentine point of view, it's well written and very interesting. Wondering whether the first one written from the British side is worth reading also.

[Absaroka]

Amazon lists five Falklands books by him. A couple look familiar, but I couldn't swear which I have read. That war was over 40 years ago, so I have read a number of books about it in the interval. Plus following it at the time :-).

[Bob from Ohio]

Fifth anniversary of the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

RIP

[Estragon]

You get the heroes you deserve

[MarkJawz]

I'd rather have Ashli Babbitt as a hero than George Floyd, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Ahmaud Arbery, or any of the left's BLM heroes.

[Estragon]

These new screen names saying the same dumb shit always reminds me of Red October. New boomer coming out of the barn.

“Ahmaud Arbery” is an especially nice touch. There is no bottom with you people.

[DDHarriman]

Why is Ahmaud in quotes like he wasn't a real person?

[jb]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it was because he was quoting MarkJawz.

[DDHarriman]

But then I don't get the "nice touch" bit. Is there some secret conspiracy about Arbery that I am not aware of?

[ducksalad]

He's pointing out the Arbery doesn't fit with the others.

Babbitt and Floyd were undisputably criminals who died in encounters with police. The questions whether deadly force was justified to stop them. Those questions have been answered, it turns out it was not justified for Floyd, while Babbitt was a good shoot.

Brown, Martin and Davis were engaged in confrontations that most people would have avoided in the first place. That's not to say they deserved to be shot or were necessarily in the wrong, but a prudent person would have found some way to de-escalate.

Arbery was just flat murdered while jogging along the road. He didn't start a confrontation. The killers went out to hunt him down.

And by the way, I think you already knew all this.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trayvon and Rittenhouse were similar—two teenagers were put in a bad situation by an adult behaving erratically. The difference is Rittenhouse was armed and Trayvon wasn’t but Zimmerman was armed.

[MarkJawz]

No, he was a known criminal who brought an illegal gun to a school, and was in the neighborhood casing a vacant house for burglary.

The three men asked him what he was doing, and rather than show some respect for his betters, he mouthed off and tried to fight them.

He's in the ground, where he belongs.

[David Nieporent]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

How is Trayvon any different than Rittenhouse?? Creepy adults attacked both of them only Rittenhouse was armed with a gun. In both instances the teenagers were correct to fear for their lives because the adult attacking them was behaving erratically.

Oh wait, Trayvon was black and Rittenhouse was white, that’s right. 😉

[John 4]

Everyone pour out some liquor for the traitor, Ashli Babbitt!

[Estragon]

It’ll be interesting to see who around here changes their tune on this in accordance with the White House update from today. No new factual revelations, but the MAGA line is now “murdered in cold blood.” This is another example of how voltage has predictive value for where MAGA ends up. He was saying this back when people like Bellmore and XY were saying it was at least justified.

[DDHarriman]

Why aren't you George Floyd level outraged over a cop killing a minority and then getting next to no scrutiny over it?

[Estragon]

Isn’t she like the poster child for FAFO? You people love FAFO! She found out before FAFO was even really a thing! St. Ashli of FAFO has a nice ring to it.

I sometimes wonder (rhetorically— not actually) if you feel any remorse over her demise. After all, it was professional right wing online trolls such as yourself who spread the lies that led this poor deluded woman to the capitol and ultimately her demise that day.

[DDHarriman]

I love how your cause celeb for several years has simply vanished from your moral fabric.

What a convenient moral framework you have. It makes sense, it's like the Living Constitutionalism your side embraces, your morals become whatever you need them to be at any given time.

[Estragon]

“if you feel any remorse over her demise”

Im going to interpret this response as “no, no remorse.”

Your bullshit got this nice lady killed. Don’t you feel a little bad about that?

[Estragon]

I’ll answer my own question. Far from feeling bad, it’s the opposite. The plan worked perfectly! Go back to some of the J6 leader trials. There are all sorts of texts in evidence about how to activate and direct riled-up “normies.”

[ducksalad]

Let's not speak ill of the dead. There was person called Ashli Babbitt who very much deserves to Rest in Peace. Flawed, with a bit of criminal history, but nevertheless someone's daughter, someone's husband, a veteran.

That person's mind died, most likely sometime around mid-November or early December 2020. By 1/6/25 there was not even enough cognition remaining to realize that charging toward a police officer pointing a gun at you is suicide. It was a body with no mind, just rage and delusions all the way down. She was no longer living in this world, she had already passed on to some alternate reality.

Who killed the real Ashli Babbitt, who we should hope is resting in peace? People who repeated election conspiracies online. They drove her insane.

[DDHarriman]

> remaining to realize that charging toward a police officer pointing a gun at you is suicide.

That's not what happened at all. Why do you think you misremember this crucial detail?

[ducksalad]

Oh, you want to make some mincing, unimportant distinction between "charging", "clambering", etc. They broke the glass in order to rush the officers. Fine, we'll say it that way.

Why are you so concerned about when her already mindless body died? Why aren't you more angry at the people who really killed her, weeks earlier, by turning her into a dangerous lunatic who would charges - oops, sorry, smash and clamber - toward officers with guns who are ordering her to stop?

[Estragon]

“Why aren't you more angry at the people who really killed her, weeks earlier, by turning her into a dangerous lunatic“

Because it was him! I guarantee you this guy was doing that back then.

[DDHarriman]

The multimillioniare ex-cop was off to the side out of line of sight of Ashli.

How does that square with how you described it?
"charging toward a police officer pointing a gun at you is suicide."

She tried jumped through a barricaded door and was shot from the flank by a barely visible policeman.

[ducksalad]

Burglars and home invaders who break through windows to enter and commit felonies do sometimes get shot. The occupants who shoot them are not prosecuted because the shootings are justified. Same thing here.

The salient facts in both cases are criminals breaking in to commit a felony. No one cares about flanking angles or whether the criminals charged versus clambered, or whether their knives were in their pockets vs in their hands. You yourself don't think any of those things matter, and would vociferously defend any "Heritage American" who shot an intruder doing half of what St. Ashli did. You're just throwing up a wall of bullshit hoping something sticks.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The people pushing her through the window could see the cop with the unholstered handgun…you go first Ashtray!!
😉

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is a notice on the SCOTUS website calendar that one or more opinions may drop on Friday. There is a chance we will have an opinion in the tariffs case.

It also might just be a less visible one.

(The protocol is using this sort of language: "The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench." But once they drop such a notice, it is rather likely an opinion will follow.)

[ducksalad]

Another question for the constitution scholars. There must be some precedents from back in the days of Barbary pirates and such...

If a defeated or cowed foreign country pays tribute to the United States, are the resulting funds:

(a) general revenue that goes into the treasury, to be spent by Congress, or
(b) federal revenue, but outside of Congressional control and spent at the discretion of the President for any valid purpose, or
(c) not federal revenue at all, and at the disposal of the President to use anyway he sees fit with no restrictions.

The reason I am asking:

I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America. This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States! I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately. It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

6.53k ReTruths 30.6k Likes Jan 06, 2026, 5:46 PM

[Absaroka]

Yikes. The legislature controlling the purse strings is a thing that goes back to parliament reining in the English kings. Presidents shouldn't have any funds to spend other than what congress appropriates.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Article 2 Presidents? No. Of course not.
Ummm, ...