Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

This is why it is difficult to trust the science:

The USA’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has released a scathing report about a study produced by six anti-alcohol academics which was intended to influence the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025-30 (which were also published this week). The US Dietary Guidelines have traditionally included recommendations on safe drinking limits and have become a battleground for the neo-temperance lobby. An attempt to halve them (from 2 drinks a day for men to 1 drink a day) failed in 2020.

In preparation for the 2025-30 edition, Congress authorised the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to carry out a review of the evidence on alcohol and health. However, the Biden administration also commissioned the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) to carry out essentially the same review.

These two organisaions were always likely to come to different conclusions. NASEM is “a large group of doctors, medical professionals, and scientists with specialized expertise to evaluate data” whereas the ICCPUD panel consisted of six activist-academics who claim that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. "

So in short the Congress tasked a National Academies of Science panel of experts for a report, which which concluded that “compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality”.

But the Biden Administration tasked 6 activist academics to try to shut the party down.

That's what fascism looks like. Bastards.

https://snowdon.substack.com/p/anti-alcohol-academics-smoked-out

[Drewski]

You just lap up propaganda, huh? ICCPUD was created by Republicans in Congress under Bush Jr. and renewed under Trump, who appointed their current Assistant Secretary. Trump appointed an anti-drinking activist because he is an anti-drinking activist who often brags that he has never even had a drink. Biden tasked them to contribute to the review because the law required him to.

Their strategic mission includes "the mission outlined in the Make America Healthy Again Commission Report and the Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy to deliver better health outcomes." If it looks like fascism to you, look inward.

[Michael P]

ICCPUD isn't the same thing as a specific panel, you dunce.

[Kazinski]

But what was its mission?

Hint: "Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking"

Biden stocked it with foreigners promoting dangerous foreign ideolgies:
"After reviewing the internal documents and communications
from HHS, the Committee is deeply concerned the AIH study group had a pre-determined goal—to publish a biased study that concluded under a “Canadian model” that no amount of alcohol
consumption is safe by recruiting scientists who would develop the research that supported that conclusion."

3 of the 6 members of the ICCPUD were Canadians.

https://oversight.house.gov/report/a-study-fraught-with-bias-how-the-biden-administrations-alcohol-intake-and-health-study-tried-to-undermine-the-2025-2030-dietary-guidelines-for-americans/

Congress tasked the National Academies of Science to provide the recommendation on dietary guidelines for all of us, not a panel tasked with dealing with drinking by minors trying to tell the rest of us what to do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Switzerland has a drinking age of 16. Yes, sophomores in high school.

And while they have some of the same problems we do with high school students, they don’t have any worse problems than we do. And they don’t have the problems we do of young people in their early 20s going to hog wild because it’s now legal to drink.

Whenever I hear reference to underage drinking, I cannot help but state that we could have addressed the AIDS issue of the 80s by enforcing our sodomy laws. Those who advocate enforcing the 21-year-old drinking age I was inevitably state, correctly, that it wouldn’t have worked, and they are right, but nana willing to go the next step further and admit that the current prohibition isn’t working.

[A Japanese Student]

For scientists, trusting science requires not blindly accepting results. The principle of "trust, but verify" always applies. But if you do not have the necessary knowledge to verify, then trusting science is, on average, a smarter decision than not doing so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A century ago, that approach didn’t work out all that well for your people.

I don’t have to know anything about the underlying science to recognize errors in basic statistical methods.

I don’t have to understand, say, why the rapid oxidation of volatile hydrocarbon distillates occur to drop a lit match into a can of gasoline and observe that I get the same results that you say you did. I don’t have to have an electronic sniffer to observe that clouds of dense black smoke are consistent with the compounds you say they are. But the smoke is green, I know somethings off….

[Joe_dallas]

Dr. Ed 2 6 hours ago
"I don’t have to know anything about the underlying science to recognize errors in basic statistical methods."

The attitude from many of the commentators here is that you are not allowed to question the "science " even when the glaring errors, bad methodology, etc is readily apparent. Its further highlighted by the failure of those commentators to demonstrate that they have sufficient knowledge to explain the validity of the science.

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe is a living example of Dunning Kruger. He doesn't know enough to know that he doesn’t know enough to know that he isn't competent to identify glaring errors and bad methodology. When a non-expert thinks that actual experts are making errors that are "readily apparent," 95% of the time it's because the non-expert is clueless.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"When a non-expert thinks that actual experts are making errors that are "readily apparent," 95% of the time it's because the non-expert is clueless."

Methodology?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s simple informal logic. The more study and experience someone has in a relevant field the more likely they are right about things in that field than someone who lacks them.

It’s a probability thing: what’s more likely, that many people with much, much more study and experience in relevant fields have made “obvious” errors in their work there or that rando bookkeeper jd is wrong when he says they have?

[Joe_dallas]

Always an impressive insult from DN who got most everything on covid wrong.

[Joe_dallas]

Always an impressive insult from DN who yesterday opined that engaging in illegal activities during a protest made those illegal activities legal

Always an impressive insult from DN who yesterday couldnt figure out that actively interfering and impeding federal law enforcement was a crime.

Alway

[Malika la Maize]

jd couldn’t even get his comment correct here, needed more than one run at it.

[Joe_dallas]

Best you and doofus dave can do is to find typo's

[David Nieporent]

I don’t have to know anything about the underlying science to recognize errors in basic statistical methods.

You do. You also have to know things about statistical analysis.

[Joe_dallas]

Math is one of the foundations of science - If the math doesnt work, then the stats and science are likely wrong.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But if you do not have the necessary knowledge to verify, then trusting science is, on average, a smarter decision than not doing so."

That depends on how much you trust the institutions that produce the science.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here, you had two competing groups of 'scientists' who disagreed with each other. "Trusting the science" is, under these circumstances, not a clear command. And it's not a reliable command once politics gets involved.

Maybe you should read the oversight committee report. It's extensively documented.

[Commenter_XY]

It might be fine to trust the science, AJS, but I surely do not trust the scientists, post-pandemic.

[DDHarriman]

My favorite were the proclamations that the world needs to shutdown over COVID unless you were protesting for black trannies. Then it's just too important to stay inside, according to The Science.

[Armchair]

1. "But if you do not have the necessary knowledge to verify"
Many, if not most people honestly don't.

2. "then trusting science "
People don't trust "science". People trust other people. "Science" doesn't say anything. People do. People say they're using "science"...but may be misleading about it.

When that happens...when it happens consistently....trust is lost in the people who claim to be using "science".

[Kazinski]

Well of course you have to trust the science.

Malted Barley has an enzyme that will turn starches in grain to maltose sugar, which is a disaccharide, at temperatures around 145-165f. Then a fungus will turn the maltose into ethyl alcohol.

In Japan the use Koji, another fungus which will convert the starches in rice to a sugar, which is then fermented.

But both processes were used long before modern science had any idea what was happening so you also have to trust folk knowledge. Ale wives knew how to make beer before scientists even knew there was such anything as yeast.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah but beer improved on kinds and quality with greater scientific understanding of the brewing process.

[Kazinski]

Not really. Where the science comes in is industrializing the process to produce massive quantities for the consumer market.

But any home brewer can tell you that producing the highest quality of beer from grain at home can be decidedly low tech using nothing more than a thermometer and the techniques used for hundreds of years, a thermometer certainly helps, and a hydrometer, but neither are essential.

[Joe_dallas]

Kaz - that is correct - you can actually know quite a bit about a topic without knowing the fine details of the science. As amply displayed on this blog, having knowledge of a subject infuriates the left.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But if you do not have the necessary knowledge to verify, then trusting science is, on average, a smarter decision than not doing so."

Many of us already know what the good policies are. For example, it's obvious that increasing the minimum wage leads to higher wages, it's right there in the name of the policy! And of course rent control makes the rent lower, and spending more on health care means that people have better health.

So given that it's better for the vast majority of people to simply trust the science, if a bureaucrat or academic can produce junk science that supports all three of these good policies for the same cost, or less, than it costs to do a properly done study to support one of them, isn't that person doing a lot of good?

Especially since it's harder to control the outcome of properly done science, and the studies sometimes end up appearing to support bad policies instead of good ones?

[Sarcastr0]

if a bureaucrat or academic can produce junk science

Good science is an exercise in humility. No wonder the purer shitposters on here don't care for it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Says the site's chief shitposter.

Anyway, which group are you claiming has a larger share of humility, academics or bureaucrats?

[Sarcastr0]

No group has a monopoly on humility.

Above you set out what you is true, and declare if research doesn't show that it's junk.

So it ain't you. You don't care about the truth, you just care about feeling correct.
Enjoy your nice smooth world. The rest of us gonna get on with figuring out real things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Above you set out what you is true, and declare if research doesn't show that it's junk."

1. My post above was obvious satire.
2. It didn't say what you claim it said, satirically or otherwise.

Other than that, great comment!

[jb]

LOL, this is what fascism looks like? They did a study you don't like alongside another study you do like?

[Malika la Maize]

I think he was joking as he’s said here he likes some Bourbon now and then.

[Kazinski]

Not completely. Congress designated an NAS group, who.are not chosen by the President, to.provide the recommendations to "Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025-30" based on the best science. The Biden Administration tried to substitute another group to.provide the guidelines, based not on the best science, but their advocacy which is why they were chosen.

[Malika la Maize]

And that’s “fascism?” Dude.

Yes, when we think of the evils of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco “establishing committees to undercut the recommendations of another committee” are totally up there.

Besides, the committee was a truth in advertising: Interagency Coordinating Committee on the *Prevention* of Underage Drinking. Of course it was going to advocate against drinking.

[Kazinski]

Its the chief executive ignoring the law as passed by Congress, and signed by the chief executive.

I've seen people call the chief executive enforcing the law to the letter as passed by Congress called fascism. This admittedly is a pretty mild example.

[jb]

As far as I can tell from your story, Biden didn't ignore the law. They did the required study and then he did another one.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, and where does this idea about the “Canadian model that no amount of alcohol consumption is safe” come from? What I find is Canada’s official guidelines say use of alcohol limited to a drink or two a week is low.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-use/alcohol/low-risk-alcohol-drinking-guidelines.html

[Malika la Maize]

See also here:

https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/CCSA_Canadas_Guidance_on_Alcohol_and_Health_Final_Report_en.pdf

[John F. Carr]

I treat all the dietary guidelines of the past couple decades as products of lobbying.

[David Nieporent]

This of course raises a broader question: why is the federal government publishing dietary guidelines at all?

[Sarcastr0]

Guidelines and standards are a great non-coercive function for government.

As an institution with no coercive force, government looks more like a collection of experts that is good at process.

EnergyStar ratings is one of my favorite examples - transparently arrived at expert ratings that caused some real good industry decision making as to efficiency just through information sharing and the market did the rest.

[Malika la Maize]

Iirc it’s tied to school lunches.

[jb]

They shouldn't serve any alcohol in school lunches!

[David Nieporent]

Ending that might indeed cut down on underage drinking!

[Voize of Reazon]

So in short the Congress tasked a National Academies of Science panel of experts for a report, which which concluded that “compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality”.

Up until a few years ago that was the consensus, based on studies decades ago that showed moderate alcohol use correlated to better health outcomes than total abstinence. But within the last 3 or so years researchers re-examined the data and discovered a significant flaw: In the category of "total abstinence" the original studies had included people who abstained because of serious health issues, including those who had been heavy drinkers and had to give it up because it was killing them. These people didn't have poorer health from not drinking, they were not drinking because of poorer health. Once they were excluded from the dataset the health advantages of moderate drinking disappeared.

The 2025 National Academies report acknowledges this source of bias:

Future studies must ensure that individuals who are true abstainers are not included with former users of alcohol in reference groups.

but it isn't clear that they have eliminated its effects from their current recommendations.

[Reallynotbob]

Can we all just agree that scientific studies can be of different value based on methods, rigor, etc?

On a related topic, it would be nice to see the "can't trust scientists" crowd get off the "vax = autism" party bus.

[not guilty]

I have recently run across an interesting commentary on the strange silence of many Christian churches in the United States regarding the Trump administration's adventures in Venezuela. Medium.com is quite an interesting website regarding matters of faith. Most of their content is available to subscribers only, which is why this is my first time to link that blog.

Some excerpts:

In the hours after one of the most blatant and disheartening acts of imperial capitalism and colonialism the world had seen in decades — at least since the last time the U.S. did this — Christian leaders were conspicuously silent.

Of American denominations, only the Episcopal Church put out a half-hearted statement somewhat condemning the military action — though not the capitalist extraction Trump explicitly announced.

The usually progressive United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church (progressive at least in their D.C. offices) were conspicuously silent.

Even the Pope — who has been warning against military intervention in Venezuela for several months — is missing in action. As of this morning, the Holy Father has yet to say anything publicly.

They are — presumably — waiting to make a measured public statement as to not anger our impetuous manchild-in-chief.

* * *

Christianity evolved not from the actual ministry and teachings of Jesus, but from people who didn’t even know him — primarily Paul.

Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s ministry de-emphasized the coming of God’s kingdom here on earth and its moral requirements, and emphasized the apocalyptic nature of Jesus’s teachings.

Hoping to avoid Jesus’s fate — a horrifically violent public execution — Paul and other early Christians did everything they could to make Jesus’s message non-threatening to the Romans.

As Jesus found out, the Romans were quick to suppress anything that could potentially challenge their imperial rule. This lesson was not lost on Paul. In the decades after Jesus’s death, Paul and other early Christian communities looked to defang the biting, anti-imperial parts of Jesus’s original message.

https://medium.com/@andrewspringer/the-silence-that-says-everything-about-christianity-2809e6ff2d9c [Footnoes omitted.]
Not that that saved Paul himself from martyrdom. Tradition (not scripture) holds that Paul was beheaded on orders of the Emperor Nero about 64-67 C.E.

The article notes the impetus for the corrupt bargain between the Christian Church and the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century, where Christianity was recognized as the state religion and the Roman Catholic Church was born:

This was the bargain: Christians got safety, wealth, and political power. In exchange, they started supporting [Constantine} personally, and stopped being dangerous to empire. They stopped asking uncomfortable questions about wealth extraction and military violence. They made peace with the very systems Jesus died resisting.

By the time Christianity became Rome’s official religion, Jesus’s actual message — his challenge to economic exploitation, his solidarity with the dispossessed, his indictment of the temple authorities who collaborated with Rome — had been buried under layers of meaningless theology that left power structures untouched.

The religion OF Jesus died. The religion ABOUT Jesus thrived.

{Italics and capitalization in original.] The writer explains how the United States carries on this unholy alliance between the Christian Church and the corrupt U.S. government:

This is the religion that came to America. Not the Jewish prophet who stood with the marginalized and condemned imperial violence, but the imperial faith that learned in the fourth century how to baptize domination in holy water.

American Christianity inherited Constantine’s bargain. It learned to bless westward expansion as “Manifest Destiny.” It provided theological cover for slavery. It sanctified capitalism as God’s economic order. It wrapped the flag around the cross until you couldn’t tell them apart.

And when empire goes to war, it does what it was designed to do: it stays silent or it blesses.

As Robert Penn Warren's character Governor Willie Stark said to his protege Jack Burden in All the King's Men (1946), "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something."

Or as the Mahatma Gandhi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Kazinski]

Well Jesus did say: "My kingdom is not of this world".

Which leaves it wide open for Trump.

[Michael P]

Except for the subscription, what sets that apart from countless other lame critiques that advocate for a particular socioreligious position (or outright heresy) that the major denominations reject? Surely the author has an elbow or two to accompany this opinion, and his elbow(s) might be less distinctively similar to Lenin's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All I can say is that NG does not understand Christianity.

For starters, Jesus did not die fighting the Romans.
And the UCC loudly destroyed itself fighting America.

And the Bible does warn about an antichrist….

[not guilty]

All I can say is that NG does not understand Christianity.

For starters, Jesus did not die fighting the Romans.

Dr. Ed 2, I grew up as a fundamentalist. And from your ignorant comment, it appears that I understand Christianity far better than you do.

Jesus pissed off the Jewish Chief Priests, who were in league with the Romans. According to scripture, the Sanhedrin tried Jesus, (who didn't fit their political agenda,) but they lacked the authority to sentence him to death, so they sent him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Matthew 27:1-2 (RSV). Pilate found Jesus not guilty, Luke 23:4, 13-24 (RSV), but nevertheless sentenced him to death. Matthew 27:26 (RSV). According to John 19:12 (RSV), this was because the Jews had threatened Pilate's position vis-a-vis Caesar in order to persuade him: "Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."

[DDHarriman]

So the Jews killed him. Don't be an antisemite okay? According to modern "Jews", those ancient and different Jews didn't kill him.

[Malika la Maize]

Him was a Jew, ya goof.

[DDHarriman]

And not a Canaanite like the current peoples appropriating the label.

We are in agreement, good catch, Bhaiya.

[Malika la Maize]

Ridiculous as usual.

[DDHarriman]

Bhaiya, aise mat kijiye na.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, you are missing a very important point, “The Jews” did not kill Jesus. It was corrupt men who killed Jesus — this is the importance of the story about Jesus‘s confrontation with the money changes in the temple.

First, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this occurred inside of what we would now call the temple, back then there also was an outer temple used as a marketplace. None of this was allowed in the inner temple, is essentially was the parking lot or lawn outside.

Church and synagogue, parking lots and adjacent lawns are used for such purposes today, this was not happening inside the sanctuary.

And what got Jesus upset was not with the money changes or engaged in business, with that they were cheating people. Further that they were cheating people in violation of Jewish law — that existing Jewish law was neither being observed nor enforced.

Like Martin Luther, Jesus wanted the Jewish authorities to essentially do their job, to enforce Jewish law fairly and equally.

I’m not gonna go further the weeds here, but the thing to remember is that it wasn’t the Jews who killed Jesus, it was corrupt Jewish officials who were not being true to the principles of Judaism, who killed him. And then if you get into the cons of predestination, as possible, they didn’t have a choice there.

Notwithstanding that, it’s not the Jews who killed Jesus. It was corrupt and evil men, exercising Jewish authority in a manner contrary to Jewish law. That’s what Jesus was saying what he said you have defamed my father’s house — I think that one line makes it very clear with the issue was all about.

[not guilty]

DDH, the Jews who accused Jesus had no authority to order him to be put to death. That punishment could be directed only by Roman authorities. Jesus was crucified -- a particularly brutal method of punishment reserved primarily for slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians, and foreigners -- because of complicity between his Jewish accusers and a Roman prefect who knew him to be innocent.

[Kazinski]

I don't understand Christianity at all, but I do know that there are zero mentions of Venezuela in the bible.

So anybody is claiming there is a Christian position on Trump:s Venezuelan incursion are.providing their own opinion, not Jesus's.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s goofy, like saying “the Constitution doesn’t mention the internet or AR-15s so they’re not covered!” General principles given and epitomized in the NT are certainly reasonable to be applied to specific contemporary events. That’s what much of the WWJD is about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Would Jefferson Do???

I think that history gives us a pretty good idea…..

[Commenter_XY]

Must be hard for you NG, living in the Bible Belt of TN.

[not guilty]

U was reared by and among fundamentalist Christians. I understand the mindset. I was proof texting scripture long before I became a lawyer.

But as the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." I Corinthians 13:11 (RSV).

[not guilty]

That U should be I.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you seeing your reflection, dimly by a mirror?

What prompted the post? What happened?

[not guilty]

What prompted the post? I made my comment above because I found the article from Medium.com to be interesting, and I wanted to share it here. For the church to be intertwined with the government does grave harm to both institutions -- just as the Emperor Constantine and the Catholic Church proved in the first millenium C.E.

If you are asking what prompted my break with Christian fundamentalism, I was taught from a very young age to regard the Bible as divinely inspired by God and inerrant. My study of the scriptures led me to question that dogma, in that the Bible contains such inconsistencies and errors that it impossible for an intellectually honest person to regard it as inerrant. Moreover, I found the leaders of the cult I was reared in to have much more in common with the Pharisees whom Jesus chastised than with Jesus himself and his teachings.

I revere Jesus (whom I do believe to be divine) and respect his teachings, but my karma ran over my dogma.

[Commenter_XY]

My study of the scriptures led me to question that dogma, in that the Bible contains such inconsistencies and errors that it impossible for an intellectually honest person to regard it as inerrant.

I understand this. For instance, in Torah (Parashat Balak), we read about Balaam, and his talking donkey. Clearly, donkeys do not talk (but asses sure do, heh). Rashi and Rambam discussed this from very different perspectives, roughly ~1,000 years ago.

What to do? I focus more on deeds (mitzvot) than creeds (stated beliefs). Just live out your Christian ideals as best you can.

[bernard11]

I believe the nature of the deeds matter as well. I remember hearing a rabbi discuss the danger of letting the fact that one follows ritual hide misbehavior (still violating commandments) in more mundane matters.

Better to be an honest man who eats pork than a thief who doesn't.

[DDHarriman]

Do you understand "medium.com" is not some authoritative site with an editor? Right?

Literally anyone can publish there. If you'd like I'll set up an account there and ask Sarcast0 to share his journal of my greatest hits and publish them as proof.

[not guilty]

Do you understand "medium.com" is not some authoritative site with an editor? Right?

Literally anyone can publish there. If you'd like I'll set up an account there and ask Sarcast0 to share his journal of my greatest hits and publish them as proof.

Well, well. That is a peculiar observation to make on this open comment thread, now isn't it?

[Riva]

Your ignorance is not an “inconsistency” or error in Scripture. And your ignorance on Church history, tradition, and the Magisterium is also breathtaking.

[bernard11]

Perhaps you'd like to point out NG's errors. That would be more convincing than just spewing out your opinion that he made some.

[not guilty]

Riva's discussion of Christianity is frequently remarkable for its omission of any references to Holy Scripture.

[not guilty]

"Your ignorance is not an 'inconsistency' or error in Scripture. And your ignorance on Church history, tradition, and the Magisterium is also breathtaking."

Riva, suppose you tell us where the four corners of the earth are? (Besides in Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

If it's all the same to you I'll stick with being me.

[Bwaaah]

🙂

[DDHarriman]

Garbage person, inside and out,

[Commenter_XY]

Remember....we are all created in His image, and are therefore holy.

[DDHarriman]

I wish my religiosity was as solid as yours. Seeing what these monsters are capable of and what they do day and day out and the beliefs they espouse make it hard to believe they are even human.

[Riva]

You should save your ignorance rants for the law. It's less offensive. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. There is no separate "Roman Catholic Church." Christian persecutions stopped under Constantine, but it wasn't the founding of the Church. And, given your antipathy to the Church, and religion in general (although I have yet to read of any criticisms of Islam by you, but you sure don't seem to care for the Jews), I suspect you would have had season tickets to the feeding of the lions. And you probably really would have enjoyed the excesses of the Jacobins during the French Revolution and really had a ball during the height of the Communist oppression. There's still time for the Communists by the way. Ask the CCP.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into the “Indulgences” that so infuriated Martin Luther.

And the Inquisitions….

[not guilty]

If scripture is to be believed, Jesus did not found a church during his days on earth. The Christian Church was founded on the Day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension thereafter. Christianity was initially regarded as a sect of Judaism.

The church at Jerusalem was led by James, the brother of Jesus, who along with Paul and Peter healed a schism between those who were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" and those who extended fellowship to Gentiles without insisting that they follow Jewish practices and customs. See, Acts of Apostles, chapter 15; Galatians chapter 2.

The unholy alliance between the Catholic Church and the Roman government dates from the conversion of the Emperor Constantine and the adoption of Christianity as the state religion in the Fourth Century C.E. in contravention of Jesus's words to Pilate, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." John 18:36 (RSV).

[Riva]

It would be kindest to note simply that you’re ignorant and delusional but your snide little attacks on the Church indicate a more malicious intent. This sick reference to James as the brother of Jesus is new though.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 10 hours ago
"I have recently run across an interesting commentary on the strange silence of many Christian churches in the United States regarding the Trump administration's adventures in Venezuela."

Because churches are not supposed to be involved in politics!

Did you forget that "separation of church and state" thing?

[bernard11]

Because churches are not supposed to be involved in politics!

Oh? They sure don't have much problem weighing in on other political issues.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If Trump moves on Greenland and the situation gets resolved by impeachment or the threat of impeachment, the new norm will by that the check on a President's military adventurism is impeachment.

[Commenter_XY]

Impeachment has always been the ultimate check.

Greenland somehow joining the US is overblown; there will be more US military in Greenland's future, patrolling arctic sea routes.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you don't think that a President being impeached over starting a war without Congressional approval would change Presidential behavior going forward?

I mean, Nixon nearly being impeached changed Presidential behavior: Presidents stopped recording, didn't they?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I suppose it will. My point is that, if that's how it plays out, in the future Presidents will be able to do what they want, and for better or for worse, they will say that the remedy if Congress disapproves is impeachment.

[Malika la Maize]

That depends, do they draw a lesson about adventurism in general or one about attacking longtime NATO allies?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Presumably about adventurism in general.

[Malika la Maize]

Doubtful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now is the time that tries our souls.

We can follow Trump and perhaps bring another century of freedom too much of the world, or we can follow Soros and finish the holocaust. It’s pretty much one of the other.

There are some very real reason reasons why Trump wants Greenland most notably he wants the marine rights of the waters off Greenland. He doesn’t want them going to the Russians or the Chinese and he’s right.

Trump is correct. He did the right thing in Venezuela. He hopefully will do the right thing in Iran and in Greenland.

[Malika la Maize]

“the time that tries our souls.”

Paine was not writing about conquering others when he wrote that. Quite the opposite.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don’t know much about the revolutionary war, do you?

Look up “Committee on Public Safety”, “Lynching”, & “Evacuation Day” for starters….

[Malika la Maize]

In a rebellion you will have to fight others but if you can’t tell the difference between an independence movement and a conquest you don’t know much about the English language.

[SRG2]

Per the FT article I linked to yesterday or the day before, Russian and Chinese vessels are not hanging around Greenland, Trump's claims to the contrary.

Anyone who thinks that the US should seize Greenland is a Putin useful idiot, as well as an immoral cunt. Trump himself should not merely be impeached if he does so. He should be killed by Danish troops as a legitimate act of war.

[ducksalad]

Now don't go overboard. A war crimes trial followed by a life sentence in a Greenland prison would be sufficient and more civilized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey, let’s deport illegals to Greenland, and not the path that’s actually green. 🙂

[ducksalad]

I read up on the prison system in Greenland. It only has a capacity of around 150 and they'll need some of those slots for people who hunt walrus without a permit or steal snowmobiles.

Couldn't make a dent in the immigration issue. But I think they could easily make room for half a dozen war criminals.

Trump, Miller, Rubio, Hegseth, two additional players to be named later as a bargaining tool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We had at least 5,500 more serviceman at Thule AFB during the Cold War then we do now. It’s been 30 years, I’m not sure what shape the barracks are in, but that’s housing that could be used.

Thule has a deep water port, so if security at what’s now a Space Base is an issue, it would be easy to ship in modular prison blocks. Such things exist, I know of a county that used them to build a new jail.

Put it 5 miles down the road, and it’ll be more secure than Alcatraz ever was — people will freeze to death before getting anywhere, and in winter time it’s dark 24/7.

[David Nieporent]

Now don't go overboard. A war crimes trial followed by a life sentence in a Greenland prison would be sufficient and more civilized.

Assuming Greenland observes Danish penal standards, and assuming Danish penal standards are similar to the rest of Scandinavia, no thanks. Far too kind to Trump.

[Jmaie]

Impeachment would be wholly appropriate, but what does Putin have to do with it?

[ducksalad]

I believe his point is that seizing Greenland would break up NATO, and that would greatly please Putin.

And I believe there really are advocates for aggression against Greenland pointing out that it's a way to get out of the treaty without a 2/3 vote of Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you aware of what China is currently doing in the so-called “South China Sea”? Particularly what they are doing to Filipino fishing boats operating in what are international waters? Or what they are doing to USN ships and aircraft making innocent passage through international waters?

The US has a vital national interest in precluding either Russia or China from claiming exclusive use of the waters off Greenland. It’s a case very much like Switzerland, where neither France no Germany, nor Italy could tolerate any one of the other countries possessing the mountain passes through Switzerland — yet all were safe if none of them did. And you’ll notice that Hitler did not go through Switzerland to get to France…

Now there’s “America First” and I’m all for that, but there’s also the lesser position of America’s national interest, i.e. preventing the US from getting screwed. Why do you oppose the latter?

[SRG2]

Is China threatening to invade any of the other territories in the South China Sea? Also, does China have treaties in place with allies in the region? The existence of NATO already protects Greenland from Russia and China - yet you support an illegal action that would destroy NATO.

And you’ll notice that Hitler did not go through Switzerland to get to France…

I also notice that Hannibal did not cross the Caucasus mountains to get to Rome.

[hobie]

Why wouldn't Greenland want to be taken over.

They'll lose their free health care; schools defunded; can't teach about native history or American slavery; brown Greenladers deported; Greenland blubber dealers blown up at sea; and any other unarmed undesirables executed.

Plus watching a superpower siphon off all their patrimonial resources like in Venezuela looks really appealing.

[Commenter_XY]

The end is in sight for Mahmoud Abbas, currently in his 21st year of a 4 year elected term. The world will be a better place without him in it.

[John F. Carr]

Before you cheer his departure, is there a better replacement in sight?

[Commenter_XY]

There are: Mohammed Dahlan and Mansour Abbas are two.

[Armchair]

A question for the commentariat.

1) Is obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation a crime?
2) If an organization was engaged in coordinated obstruction of law enforcement operations across state, how might law enforcement respond?

[apedad]

That's two questions.

[Malika la Maize]

And neither are questions really it’s Armchair usual shtick to set up some point he wants to make.

[Armchair]

Questions are scary for you, aren't they?

[Malika la Maize]

No, your consistent shtick of appearing to be making them when you really want to make some preordained point is laughable to me.

[Armchair]

And yet...you still avoid the questions.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't actually have questions.

Avoiding your idiosyncratic style of asserting right-wing claims doesn't make you the Winner of the Internet, though it's clear you're simple enough to think it does.

[Armchair]

Commenter_XY answered the questions easily.

Yet...you did not.

[Sarcastr0]

Fellow terrible person and MAGA apparatchik agrees with your assertions of the MAGA narrative.

Amazing work, Armchair. Truly, you're a winner of Internet arguing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a third question Gaslight0, can the government seek civil damages from those involved? I’m thinking of what the baby killers did to put an end to operation rescue, suing each of the individuals involved personally, bankrupting them.

A used Honda Pilot is $35,000, a new one lists for $45,000 — how was No Good Renee able to afford one? She has three minorchildren, apparently only one of who was living with her, how was she providing for this child? And why couldn’t she be taking the bus, like the left once all of us to do?

Instead of equipping ice vehicles with snow plows, maybe we should equip them with facial recognization cameras. Anyone who blocks a road not only get sued, but loses all public assistance. Maybe even custody of their children. The left wants to play hardball fine, let’s play hardball.

[Malika la Maize]

Because they’re not questions.

[Armchair]

Sure they are. Right there with the question mark and everything. Let's try again. Just one for you, to make it easier.

"Is obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation a crime?"

[Malika la Maize]

It’s like a leftist posting:

I have a general question. Should unarmed mothers be shot in the face by LEOs?

[Mr. Bumble]

....like Justine Diamond?

[Bob from Ohio]

"unarmed mothers"

She was armed with a 2 ton car.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob didn't manage to answer the question!

By Armchair's rules, that proves Malika correct somehow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A PERSON IN CONTROL OF A 4,500 lb. DEADLY WEAPON IS NOT UNARMED!!!!!!!!!

I had one client who ran over her husband in the parking lot, and, much to the horror of bystanders, dropped it into reverse and ran over him again. At this point, he was quite dead.

I don’t care how much Kelvar the ice guys are wearing, it won’t protect them from a 4,500 lb. Vehicle across the chest.

THE DELTA CHARLIE WAS ARMED!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Malika la Maize]

“She was armed with a 2 ton car.”

A flying car, going over your head my point in it?

[David Nieporent]

I had one client who ran over her husband in the parking lot, and, much to the horror of bystanders, dropped it into reverse and ran over him again. At this point, he was quite dead.

I don’t care how much Kelvar the ice guys are wearing, it won’t protect them from a 4,500 lb. Vehicle across the chest.

1) Janitors don't have clients.
2) This agent wasn't injured, let alone killed.

[Armchair]

"Should unarmed mothers be shot in the face by LEOs?"

I'm happy to answer, but just looking for a little clarification first.

Is there something specific about "mothers" to the question? As opposed to just "women" or "people"? I would hate to answer incorrectly, and have it assumed that other unarmed people should be shot in the face by LEOs.

Mind clarifying before I answer?

[Armchair]

In regards to David's point

"2) This agent wasn't injured, let alone killed."

This is a bit of a dumb statement. What it implies is that the agent can only use lethal force if he is killed. But of course, if he's killed, he can't use lethal force. So lethal force is just never justified...or only justified when it can't be used anymore.

[CountmontyC]

They are questions. Just not questions you want to answer. I will add another question. Why are you afraid to answer Armchair's questions?

[Malika la Maize]

They’re not, anymore than my example was. They’re part of his consistent shtick of trying to make a preordained point by raising a general question. It’s transparent except perhaps for naive folks like you.

[CountmontyC]

They are relevant questions to the issue being debated and you obviously fear to answer them because the correct answers destroy your position.

[Commenter_XY]

1. Yes
2. Perhaps designate the organization as a domestic terror group. Surveil, and then detain members. If the detainee is an illegal alien, deport them to Eswatini.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, there is no such thing as "designating an organization as a domestic terror group." (There is a statutory provision allowing foreign organizations to be designated as such.)

[not guilty]

A question for the commentariat.

1) Is obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation a crime?
2) If an organization was engaged in coordinated obstruction of law enforcement operations across state, how might law enforcement respond?

These rhetorical questions are far too broad to have much meaning.

There are circumstances under which obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation is a crime. To determine whether that is so in a particular instance requires consideration of the particular facts and circumstances to determine whether any specific federal criminal statute(s) have been violated.

In order to prosecute for an alleged violation of federal criminal law, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense." United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812).

[Armchair]

It's too broad a question to ask whether obstruction of federal law enforcement is a crime? For you? You love citing all the relevant possible laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Forget that. There’s a fairly good chance that a good number of these women are receiving public assistance of some sort. The fraud in Minnesota is already up to about $9 billion, and that’s only what we know about.

So how about auditing every one of these Delta Charlies?

How about establishing a new branch of the IRS, charged with both investigating unreported income (i.e. the money paid to protest) and welfare fraud, which are almost certainly involved in.

[David Nieporent]

The fraud in Minnesota is already up to about $9 billion,

False.

and that’s only what we know about.

As always, the biggest problem with Dr. Ed isn't what he doesn't know, but what he knows that isn't so.

[not guilty]

"It's too broad a question to ask whether obstruction of federal law enforcement is a crime? For you? You love citing all the relevant possible laws."

I did answer your question, Armchair. I said quite plainly that "[t]here are circumstances under which obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation is a crime."

I then qualified that answer by elaborating, "[t]o determine whether that is so in a particular instance requires consideration of the particular facts and circumstances to determine whether any specific federal criminal statute(s) have been violated."

If you have a question about the application of a particular federal statute to a particular set of facts, I will be pleased to answer that to the best of my ability.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
A question for the commentariat.

1) Is obstruction of a federal law enforcement operation a crime?
2) If an organization was engaged in coordinated obstruction of law enforcement operations across state, how might law enforcement respond?

"These rhetorical questions are far too broad to have much meaning."

Judging from several comments yesterday - At least one of your fellow leftists was having extreme difficulty just recognizing that a person was even interfering and/or impeding federal law enforcement in spite of multiple videos showing such activity.

[DDHarriman]

3.). If an organization is funded by foreign dark money and is engaged in coordinated obstruction is that not an act of terrorism? It can't be war as these foreign billionaires and NGOs aren't a nation.

[David Nieporent]

That is not an act of terrorism, and what weird thing did you see on 4chan that has caused you to keep repeating "foreign billionaire" about something that has nothing do with foreign billionaires — or domestic ones, either?

[DDHarriman]

You might have missed it. Hobie shared a sad lonely image of himself holding up a protest sign. A sign that proudly declared it was paid for by a revolutionary socialist party whose primarily funded by a foreign billionaire.

Foreign billionaires are funding on the ground influence ops that are leading to looting and destruction and civil unrest.

What label would you assign to that notion? Free speech? It's (D)ifferent? (D)on't Care?

I assign it the label '(D)omestic Terrorism'.

[bernard11]

What a jackass you are.

A sign that proudly declared it was paid for by a revolutionary socialist party whose primarily funded by a foreign billionaire.

Few billionaires are revolutionary socialists. They tend to be fond of capitalism. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I suspect it has something to do with Soros.

[David Nieporent]

Going down the google rabbit hole to try to guess what this is talking about, the guy is an American, not foreign, billionaire. And we had this discussion weeks ago: that someone donates money to an organization does not mean that person is paying for the organization to do specific things.

[SRG2]

1. That depends on whether the operation is itself constitutional or otherwise lawful. For example, if a Federal agency is acting ultra vires, I don't see that obstructing it is a crime. Of course, the cultists here, being authoritarian types, would have trouble accepting the idea thar any Federal agency following orders from Trump or his OKW is acting ultra vires of course.

2. A variety of responses are possible, from FBI investigations to issuing pardons,

Now answer my question.
1. When a citizen acts to obstruct a Federal law enforcement operation, why is it not terrorism?

[Krayt]

Terrorism is attacking the general population as punishment for going along (however passively) with the powers that be.

This is clearly targeted. Whatever it is, it's not terrorism. Guerilla warfare with a latte, perhaps.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it doesn't have to be the general population that's targeted.

"The federal government defines domestic terrorism (DT) as ideologically driven crimes committed by individuals in the United States that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy or conduct of a government. "

"or influence the policy or conduct of a government".

In this case it certainly appears that last bit fits.

[SRG2]

The Federal government may define it like this for political purposes. This no more makes it the legitimate definition than the UN's definition of "refugee" as it applies to Palestinians.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a crime, crimes have legal definitions. Like it or not, it can still be "terrorism" if you target government employees.

[SRG2]

Your argument is that because the Federal government defines a word to mean something other than its common or regular usage, that is "essentially" what the word means. Very 1984 of you.

Now the Feds may define certain conduct as a crime, and incorrectly for intentional propaganda purposes call that crime terrorism, but as anyone doing Philosophy 101 will tell you, the crime is the activity, not the word.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, my argument would be that the common, regular usage of "terrorism" does not exclude attacks on government employees.

[David Nieporent]

The federal government's statutory definition of terrorism fits the general lay use of the word terrorism, so I'm not sure what your gripe is here.

In essence, terrorism is statutorily defined in federal law as violent acts/acts dangerous to human life that are intended to intimidate or coerce the government or civilian population. Obviously as with any statute there are edge cases either way, but as a general proposition that seems like an entirely reasonable definition.

[bernard11]

But the definition Brett quotes does not specify violence as a component.

If I paint a slogan intended to "influence the policy or conduct of a government" on a building I don't own, is that not vandalism, hence "domestic terrorism" by that definition?

I think "terrorism" now plays the role "Communism" played in the fifties - an all-purpose term for someone the government doesn't like.

[not guilty]

"It's a crime, crimes have legal definitions."

Think so? From your link, Brett:

Despite the statutory definition of DT in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, no federal criminal provision expressly prohibits "domestic terrorism." While DT is defined in federal statute, the term domestic terrorist is not used to officially label any group (as it is with foreign terrorist organizations). However, federal law enforcement has referred (in some instances such as congressional testimony) to individuals as domestic terrorists and their crimes as DT.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47885

So "domestic terrorism," even though defined, is mostly a scary epithet. As I wrote upthread, in order to prosecute for an alleged violation of federal criminal law, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense." United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812).

To paraphrase Hamlet, Brett, you are hoist by your own canard.

[Malika la Maize]

You let the federal government define all your concepts now?

[not guilty]

[deleted]

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK let me give a simple example here — sabotage.

Say for the sake of argument that this sabotage doesn’t affect public safety or even the general public as a whole, it only affects the efficient operation of government. For example, say putting 5000 gallons of diesel fuel into the underground gasoline tank that supplies fuel to the government motor pool.

This wouldn’t be an inherent eminent safety issue because all it would do is prevent the vehicles from running, and or make them run terribly, depending on how how high a percentage of diesel fuel is in the mix.

And it wouldn’t affect the public directly because they’re not getting gasoline out of the government’s pump, or least Ithey’re not supposed to be.

Yet, I would call this terrorism.

[SRG2]

Yet, I would call this terrorism.

And you'd be wrong. Because it's sabotage. No terror is engendered.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was sabotage until she shifted into drive, anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Terrorism is essentially defined as any effort to extort policy changes using criminal means. This definition hinges on the means being criminal, and the objective being obtaining a policy change.

It doesn't hinge on whether the policy you're trying to force change to is legal or not.

But in this case the actions are fully legal.

[SRG2]

Terrorism is essentially defined by the US government for political purposes as any effort to extort policy changes using criminal means.

FTFY

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the same terrorism definition you'll find basically every government on Earth using, but go ahead, insist that it's not really "terrorism" if you target government employees.

[David Nieporent]

Brett's definition is incorrect, so your fix is misplaced. (See above.)

[ReaderY]

Neither declining to help the feds, nor protesting them, constitutes obstructing them. You’ll need to clarify why you think current conduct qualifies as obstruction.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure blocking a public road "obstructs".

[SRG2]

Only if the Federal agents are not acting ultra vires. If, for example, the SA, er, ICE, are going door to door to check people's papers, per JD Vance last week, obstructing them is not criminal - indeed, is not only constitutional but worthy of praise from the Brett Bellmores of this world.

[Brett Bellmore]

This goes back to the fundamental problem here: Refusing to accept that this country's immigration laws, and enforcing them, is legally legitimate even if you don't like them.

I don't like our gun laws. I think they're constitutionally illegitimate. I have constitutional scholars, (Some of whom have contributed her on The Conspiracy), agreeing with me about that.

If the BATF show up to execute a warrant, and I obstruct them, I'm still going to jail.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, this isn't even about immigration laws at this point.

You've never been good at understanding the difference between means and ends, but the ends stopped being immigration enforcement long long ago.

This is just authoritarian flex now. Going door to door to check papers with no warrants? Smashing windows? tear gassing the press? Disbelieving ID's?

You'd have to be a fucking moron to think this was about immigration at this point.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not sure that is an accurate statement of the law.

Show your work.

[SRG2]

It follows from the laws that obstructing an agent performing official duties is generally a crime. Now "official duties" will be interpreted broadly - too broadly - but if you can show that the agent is acting outside official duties and knows or should have known it, then you're in the clear. You are generally ill-advised to do so at the time, of course, but we're not talking what's wise but what's legal.

As far as Brett's observation is concerned, if you don't agree with what the agents are doing but you know that they're nonetheless carrying out official duties, you have no defence. If ICE show up without a warrant and attempt to arrest you for unlawful possession of a weapon, absolutely you can obstruct them because they cannot be said - except if you're part of the OKW - to be acting in an official capacity,

BTW all unlawful orders are, ipso facto, ultra vires.

[hobie]

18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting/Resisting/Impeding Officers): Knowingly assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer can lead to up to 20 years in prison if a dangerous weapon is used or serious bodily injury occurs, or up to 8 years if bodily injury is inflicted, with fines possible.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Court Officers): Interfering with jurors or court officers in judicial proceedings can result in up to 10 years imprisonment, or 20 years for attempted murder or attacks on jurors related to Class A/B felonies.

18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of Agency/Congressional Proceedings): Interfering with federal agency or congressional proceedings carries penalties of up to 5 years in prison, or 8 years if terrorism-related, plus fines.

18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Tampering with Witnesses/Evidence): Influencing, delaying, or harming witnesses, or destroying evidence, can result in up to 30 years imprisonment, especially if involving bodily injury or death.

18 U.S.C. § 1510 (Obstruction of Criminal Investigations): Interfering with a criminal investigation can lead to up to 5 years in prison, fines, or both.

Note: none allow for the death penalty.
Also Note: all of these were violated by Trump in the documents case. I know you are not suggesting we shoot him in the face.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whether any of these allow for the death penalty is utterly and completely irrelevant. She wasn't sentenced to death, she was shot because in the process of trying to escape arrest she endangered a cop's life.

Just because you're trying to escape being arrested for a minor offense doesn't mean the cop has to let you run him over.

[loki13]

Oh lord, I can't believe I am shocked (shocked) to find this going on in this establishment.

Wait ... so when cops are yelling contradictory things at you (and several are yelling MOVE MOVE!!!) and you reasonably try to ... MOVE ... it's just open season?

And you then get to shoot several times at the car? You know that the first shot (when he was ... I mean, let's be generous and say "arguably") was at the bottom corner of the driver's side windshield, which means that the next two shots (when he most certainly was in no danger at all) included the fatality?

Also? When you shoot to kill, you then get to flee the scene of your crime with your buddies (after calling the deceased a bitch) to get your stories straight?

By the way, you know that there was a secret report by the CPB ... in 2013 ... that found, and I quote, that in many of the vehicle shooting cases, the "driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby … creating justification for the use of deadly force." Weird, huh?

Also also? You know that these people (by which, I mean the government generally, and McLaughlin and Noem specifically) ... they lie, they lie, they lie. Do you know why?

Because of people like you. You take the lie, and you work out ways to defend it. In case after case, they announce the lie, and the truth doesn't come out for days, weeks, and months after. Over and over, we find out that LEO was in no danger, and they just craft lies. Case after case after case.

In the end, a mother was killed for no reason. Not a terrorist. Not committing crimes. And if you feel that you, a so-called libertarian who used to love to hate on government, feels the need to defend it... well, you've really lost your way. Government employees are terrible and shouldn't be trusted with people's rights, unless they are executing them on the street, amirite?

[hobie]

One good thing about killing all these unarmed people on land and sea, is that none get to tell their side in court.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was standing facing the car as it accelerated towards him. Gun in right hand, so his center of mass was closer to the center of the car's path than the gun was. This is enough to establish that he was in the path of the vehicle when he made the decision to fire.

Given an opportunity for calm reflection, the second and third shots would be improper, but Brown v United states, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife". AND "Moreover, if the last shot was intentional and may seem to have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting for his life."

In the end a mother was killed because she decided that she was entitled to obstruct the enforcement of a law she opposed, and was entitled to flee arrest even if it meant endangering somebody's life.

[hobie]

Brett, I highly encourage all you hayseeds to continue blaming this woman...at least until the midterms are over.

[Brett Bellmore]

Gladly.

[loki13]

I posted a full reply down below.

But it's a sign of the times that a self-professed "libertarian" is defending shooting a mother in the head for not being sufficiently deferential to state authority, even when the state authority isn't actually lawful.

[David Nieporent]

He was standing facing the car as it accelerated towards him.

The word "accelerated" is correct in a physics sense, but continues to be incredibly misleading in the lay sense. It implies the car was going fast, when in fact it was going slowly. (Nobody says, "I accelerated out of the parking spot in the supermarket lot," even though by the physics definition they had to, since the car's velocity increased from 0.)

Gun in right hand, so his center of mass was closer to the center of the car's path than the gun was.

That does not in fact necessarily follow, since it mistakenly assumes the bullet was fired straight into the front of the car. And we know he was nowhere near the center of the car's path, since he only had to take one step to be entirely out of the car's path.

In the end a mother was killed because

An ICE agent thought that law enforcement officers were more important than real people.

[hobie]

Let the hayseeds have their 'ramming speed' belief, David. They're down to this one minutia to cling to

[Armchair]

"And we know he was nowhere near the center of the car's path, since he only had to take one step to be entirely out of the car's path."

Does not hold to be true. The average width of a car is approximately 6 feet. The average stride length is approximately 30 inches. The individual can be 6 inches from the dead center of the front car and still one "step" away from the edge.

[SRG2]

You do not dismiss the idea that he was standing in front of the car deliberately so he could fire his gun.

[Armchair]

From the video footage he was circling the car, while videoing it. He was only in front of the car for a few seconds. That is when the car started to move forward.

If he was deliberately standing in front of the car, waiting for it to move forward so he can shoot, the timing doesn't really work.

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump said that neither the Republican Party nor the MAGA movement had room for people with antisemitic views, his most direct public statement yet in a debate pulsing through his movement over the inclusion of supporters who spread hate.

“I think we don’t need them,” he said on Wednesday during an interview with The New York Times, when asked whether such people had a place in his coalition. “I think we don’t like them.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-maga-republicans-antisemitism.html

Harriman (and Mikie Q) Hit Hardest?

[apedad]

Guys, I've told you to look at the exact opposite of what Trump says for the truth.

For example, Trump loves Charlie Kirk - who was a big ol' antisemitic.

"Kirk blamed 'Jewish dollars' for funding 'Cultural Marxist ideas.' According to Jewish Currents, 'Cultural Marxism' is an antisemitic trope that purports that Jewish people are attempting to 'undermine traditional American values.'”

(I can hear DD Harriman applauding in the background.)

[Malika la Maize]

Foreign cosmopolitan billionaires!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm picturing this Bond film, where they're discussing the latest bad guy's scheme to poison water supplies, and somebody objects: "Look, he's a Jewish banker who spends a lot of time petting a cat! He can't be evil, that would be so stereotypical!"

In the end Bond has to leave him alone, stopping the scheme would be antisemitic.

[bernard11]

That's pathetic Brett. Truly pathetic.

Kirk didn't blame one individual who happens to be Jewish. He blamed "Jewish dollars."

Now, dollars generally don't hold religious beliefs, so it's safe to say he meant, "Jews." (why, BTW, did such a strong alleged advocate of free expression object to someone spending money to advance some ideas? And why does it matter whose money it is?)

It's not (quite) Elders of Zion stuff, but it's in the same area code.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It sounds like he was claiming that many Jewish people donate money that ends up supporting left-wing ideas that divide people up into oppressor and oppressed classes, which enables antisemitic criticism of Israel. That doesn't sound very antisemitic.

[hobie]

Like I've said over and over here: touching conservatism's third rail of rank antisemitism/white Christian nationalism/Kirk (the three are always interchangeable) is a political - and sometimes legal - death sentence in the MAGAverse. It's saying the quiet part out loud. It's admitting there's such in the ranks.

I don't think even a god-king like Trump can rage against it. So he better be careful.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Kirk blamed 'Jewish dollars' for funding 'Cultural Marxist ideas.'"

This fact check site paints a more defensible picture of his comments.

[Moderation4ever]

What I find most interesting is the nature of the far left and far right. Far left antisemitism seems to originate in opposition to the State of Israel. Far right antisemitism seems to attack Jews more directly. Neither is acceptable. Criticism of Israeli policies is acceptable but Israel has a right to exist and exist peacefully. Too many far left antisemites don't accept this idea. Too many far right antisemites are simple caught up in conspiracy scandals seeing Jews at the core of too much they fear. Don't know if this is correct just the way it appears to me.

[Commenter_XY]

Who cares about 'right' or 'left'; it is anti-semitism either way. And it is wrong. It has no place in this country.

Just yesterday, the largest synagogue in MS was torched. Do I care if the perp was 'right' or 'left'? No, I do not. I just don't want my synagogue to be burned down by disgusting antisemites.

[Sarcastr0]

Understanding the enemy is actually a good idea.

But antisemitism isn't always your enemy is it? You cozy up to Lex regularly around here.

You chose condoning antisemitism from the right some time ago.

[Commenter_XY]

You're the one who peddles blood libels about Israel, asshole.

[Sarcastr0]

What a lame deflection - a scurrilous lie to change the subject from you with open antisemite Lex yukking it up.

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair helpfully provided the receipts from November 2023, asshole. I called you out then for your false accusations of genocide by Israel and the IDF. And continue to note that you are drawn to any discussion of Jews or Israel like a moth to a flame.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/22/thursday-open-thread-205/?comments=true#comment-10696667

Everyone said that was bullshit, because it was bullshit:
David Nieporent
ObviouslyNotSpam
Randal
grb

You and Armchair persist because antisemitism isn't important enough to you so why no lie about it for partisan Internet points.

That says some very bad things about your priorities.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Randal
grb"

Jew haters both.

[grb]

Fuck you Bob - you lying piece of shit. You never said an honest thing in your life that anyone here ever saw. This sleazy falsehood is just more worthless gutter-trash trolling

[Sarcastr0]

How many American Jews would you say count as Jew-haters, Bob?

[John 4]

Testy! Seems like getting called out on your coziness with antisemites has struck a nerve.

[SRG2]

Do I care if the perp was 'right' or 'left'? No, I do not.

Though if he were left, you'd make a far larger noise about it, I think.

I find it suspicious that no name or other identification has yet been released. This seems unusual.

[Commenter_XY]

Right or Left, they're still assholes = anti-semites

[bernard11]

Was Kirk an antisemite, do you think?

[SRG2]

Far left anti-Semitism precedes Israel - it stems from the identification of Jews with capitalism, and arguably precedes even the concept of left-wing. Israel merely provided a modern rationalisation.

[Malika la Maize]

It is interesting that there are many Christian anti-semites and Marxist anti-Semites when both Christ and Marx were Jews.

Anti-Semites are dumb.

[David Nieporent]

Marx was not Jewish.

[Magister]

Groucho was.

[David Nieporent]

Fair enough.

[Moderation4ever]

Both of Karl Marx's grandfathers were rabbis. Marx's father converted to Christianity to be able to work as a solicitor and had his wife convert and raise the children Christian. Nothing suggest that Marx's father was very religious, he simple understood the fact of the time and place he lived in. After his fathers death Karl Marx and his mother clashed over money and it has been suggested his dislike for Jews stemmed from these clashes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Antisemitism derives from the need for certain ideologies to identify external enemies.

External enemies don't have to actually be enemies, but they do need to have certain characteristics:

They need to be a minority, or else you're deciding to be outnumbered.

They have to be reasonably well off, nobody's going to accept that some downtrodden minority are the secret masters of the universe.

It helps if they stand out a bit, so people know who to hate.

Jews, unfortunately, are a good fit for this. And antisemitism has been around a long while, so you don't have to recreate it from scratch.

[SRG2]

They have to be reasonably well off, nobody's going to accept that some downtrodden minority are the secret masters of the universe.

The Masters of the Universe trope isn't essential to anti-Semitism. The vast majority of Jews in Christian and Muslim lands were not reasonably well off - nor were permitted to be.

Indeed, the claim that in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church protected Jews from being killed (not very effectively, as the genetic evidence suggests), while true, missed the context that the Church wanted Jews to be alive so they could be seen to be downtrodden, poor and miserable.

[bernard11]

the Catholic Church protected Jews from being killed (not very effectively, as the genetic evidence suggests), while true, missed the context that the Church wanted Jews to be alive so they could be seen to be downtrodden, poor and miserable.

I think describing the church's efforts as ineffective is understating matters rather badly. The church was often complicit in murder. Go read about the Crusades, among other things. Read about Ferdinand and Isabella being proclaimed "The Catholic Monarchs" after expelling the Jews from Spain, etc.

[SRG2]

I know about all of that, and sometimes the pope actually complained - while doing little. Nor did all popes go along with the idea of keeping us poor and miserable as an example. Some were happy for us to be killed, others didn't really care.

[bernard11]

They have to be reasonably well off, nobody's going to accept that some downtrodden minority are the secret masters of the universe.

Before Hitler most Jews in Eastern Europe, where antisemitism was rife, were poor. There was, however, a small elite, very wealthy group of Jews. It is likely that any resentment of Jewish wealth stemmed from the prominence of these individuals, not from envy of Jews in general.

[David Nieporent]

Far left antisemitism seems to originate in opposition to the State of Israel.

Far left antisemitism long predates 1948.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Keep it up, schmuck, and you will not only normalize antisemitism but make it an asset in a campaign.

Or is that your intent?

[SRG2]

It can be an asset in a campaign whether of left or right. Anti-Semites in the US far outnumber Jews.

[M L]

"his most direct public statement yet"

LOL, no. NYT and the like are so ridiculous, and have been my entire adult life. I have no idea how anyone really reads this stuff and takes it seriously.

Just for instance.

"And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution."

another

"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

[OpinionsVary]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115879509461234235

Trump recently claimed to be the Acting President of Venezuela - or at least posted a meme to that effect. This claim is likely meant to be interpreted symbolically rather than a literal claim to the office but with Trump you can never be too sure. So, in the case where Trump does want to make himself President of Venezuela, would that legal?

If we look at world examples, it's not that uncommon for a head of state to serve for multiple countries at once. Kings are the big example here (King of the United Kingdom, King of Canada, King of Australia etc). But there are also examples like the President of France also being the co-head of state of Andorra.

But of course this is America, not France, so what is the American law like?

The Emolument clause is one possible bar.

>No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Acting President of Venezuela is presumably an office under the foreign state of Venezuela. Of course that could be solved by getting permission from Congress and the Blackman et al crew has this entire thing about the Presidency not being an ''office of Profit or Trust" too.

Anything else?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose, just for the sake of argument, that if you took the office, rather than being given it, the emolument clause wouldn't kick in. The point of the clause being to prevent our officers from being bought off by other countries; If you forcibly took it, you wouldn't feel indebted.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait, I thought SecState Rubio was running VEN! I figure btwn SecState, NatSec Advisor, what is one more title: Viceroy of Venezuela.

[Josh R]

It's not as good as Archivist of the Untied States.

[Commenter_XY]

I forgot about that one...damn, 4 jobs. POTUS Trump is getting his money's worth. One guy, one paycheck, does four jobs. 🙂

[Voize of Reazon]

Why would you look to US law to answer this question?

Article 41 of the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999 provides that "Only Venezuelans by birth who have no other nationality shall be permitted to hold the [office] of President of the Republic".

[SRG2]

"Only Venezuelans by birth who have no other nationality shall be permitted to hold the [office] of President of the Republic".

Cue Josh explaining that this law applies only to permanent presidents, not acting presidents.

[hobie]

Ironic that a bunch of white illegals have taken over the jobs and resources of Venzuela

[Malika la Maize]

In the nationwide survey, 61% of respondents said that the U.S. should be a moral leader, but only 39% say it actually is one. That latter figure is sharply down from 60% in 2017 in a similar survey of American attitudes.

Providing a bigger picture of Americans' foreign policy perspectives, the NPR/Ipsos poll suggests that 46% of Americans want U.S. policy to focus on "enriching America and Americans," while 32% prioritize promoting democracy and human rights in other countries — with the democracy viewpoint dropping from 42% in 2017…

The survey also suggests partisan splits on major foreign policy issues, particularly when it comes to the priorities of America's foreign policy. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans — and 45% of independents — think American foreign policy should focus on enriching America and its citizens, while only 29% of Democrats polled believe so.

Instead, the majority (52%) of Democrats say the U.S. should prioritize promoting democracy and human rights in other countries, while that appetite is much lower among the Republicans (16% polled).

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/09/nx-s1-5671094/npr-ipsos-us-opinion-poll-foreign-affairs

[Brett Bellmore]

"Sixty-seven percent of Republicans — and 45% of independents — think American foreign policy should focus on enriching America and its citizens, while only 29% of Democrats polled believe so."

Once again demonstrating why, when I decided to give up on the Libertarian party, I aligned myself with the Republicans.

I've remarked on this before: Government inherently does all sorts of things we'd ordinarily recognize as wrongs if done by anybody but government: It extracts wealth from people by threats of violence, it extorts obedience by threats of violence, basically everything inherently governmental rests on a foundation of violence, and we are NOT given a choice about whether to participate.

The only possible justification for this sort of evil is that it is unavoidably necessary to avert greater evil. That it's actually being done for the benefit of the people subjected to it.

To tax people, to subject them to mandatory commands backed by threats, for the benefit of OTHER people, not themselves, is just unadulterated evil.

So it's unavoidable that the purpose of everything government does has to center on benefiting the people subjected to this: Its own citizens. Any benefit to others has to be incidental.

The left isn't comfortable with the idea that you can't justify robbing Peter to pay Paul. They've bought into universal utilitarianism, where if the harm to Peter is hypothesized to be less than the benefit to Paul, robbing Peter to pay Paul is obligatory, not forbidden.

So this survey has actually identified one of the fundamental divides between two irreconcilable views of government. And I know which side I'm on.

[Malika la Maize]

Does the LP push against that idea?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, generally the LP pushes against the government doing more than is absolutely unavoidable, since government is the institutionalized violation of the non-aggression principle. But this is especially the case for foreign policy, both military and aid.

Here's a brief summation.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s what I mean, you don’t have to leave the LP over this because it’s not antithetical to thinking the federal government should only act on Americans enrichment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't mean to give the impression that this is why I left the LP. I left the LP because campaign 'reforms' had rendered 3rd parties non-viable in the US.

I joined the LP back in the late 70's, not long after it was founded. We always knew at that time that we'd have to grow really fast, because once the incumbent parties decided we were a threat, they'd mobilize the government against us.

Long story short, we didn't grow fast enough, they woke to the threat before we were big enough to defend ourselves, and they erected all sorts of defenses against third parties that made that approach to influencing government in a libertarian direction futile.

This is just what dictated where I went after leaving the LP.

[apedad]

Brett would have been a Loyalist in 1776.

That whole Revolution thing would have been too hard.

Brett's Motto: I choose to . . . Appease!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's important to recognize when something isn't working, and try something different. Don't let the means become the end.

The LP was never anything but a means to an end, when the laws changed to render it a futile means, I gave up on it.

[David Nieporent]

No laws changed; you left the LP because you aren't libertarian. You're a Republican who's more doctrinaire on guns than the GOP.

[Brett Bellmore]

No True Libertarian!

I'm more doctrinaire on a heck of a lot of other things, too, you know. You don't find a lot of Republicans who want drugs relegalized, for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

You're telling people to meekly and quietly comply with the government or get shot up and down this thread.

You can't greenwash your bootlicking with weed.

You're not a libertarian by any definition other than your own self-image.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm telling people not to try to run over cops, even if they don't like the laws the cops are enforcing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You can't greenwash your bootlicking with weed."

Have you even tried?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you got this close to saying smirking at a cop is terrorism, don't fall back on lying about the car; everyone can read what you've written.

[David Nieporent]

I don't find you wanting drugs legalized; I find you supporting Republicans who want the opposite because of your ridiculous rationalization about them being the "lesser evil."

[TwelveInchPianist]

On what planet is this inconsistent?

Not everyone agrees with every politician they support on every issue.

[apedad]

"Sixty-seven percent of Republicans . . . think American foreign policy should focus on enriching America and its citizens . . . . "

Since Republicans are also mainly Christian ([a]mong Republicans, 74% identify as Christian*), doesn't this make them hypocrytes?

* https://catholicvote.org/pew-democrats-far-less-religious-than-republicans-with-major-racial-divides/

[Malika la Maize]

I had a similar thought, a Christian nation that is only out to enrich itself?

[Commenter_XY]

What is wrong with making money (enriching yourself)? That isn't contrary to Christian belief.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a focus quite outranked by others in the NT.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really. This is about what GOVERNMENT should be doing, not about what individuals should be doing. Just because you favor charity, including international charity, doesn't mean you feel it appropriate to coerce others into supporting your efforts.

Bob is entitled to be charitable to Paul. He's not entitled to rob Peter to fund that charity.

[Sarcastr0]

In a republic, the government is a vessel of the people.

The dodge that charitable works (feeding the poor, sheltering the needy, etc.) should only be personal isn't in the Bible, has been tried, and doesn't work in practice.

Libertarian Jesus has an artificially limited message.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In a republic, the government is a vessel of the people."

Pfft. Government is an evolved form of protection racket that is subject to backsliding any time you stop treating it with the utmost caution.

Anything that can be done without government SHOULD be done without government, because government is about the morally worst way of doing anything, and is only justifiable when no other way is feasible of doing something that is absolutely necessary to do.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I remember when Jesus said all that.

And, again, we tried no social safety net, and leaving it to charity. It created Dickensian England.

Though of course you remain not very libertarian, considering how enthusiastic you are about Trump's MAGA initiatives. When the government is restricting speech, owning the libs (sometimes shooting them), and being cruel to immigrants, you're all in.

[Malika la Maize]

If that’s true then your fellow travelers who go on about this being a Christian nation shouldn’t pull our government into that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't go on about this being a Christian nation. It's a nation largely inhabited by Christians, but our government is, by design, secular, or at the very least nonsectarian.

[Malika la Maize]

I said your fellow travelers. When they go on about that, pushing for the 10 Commandments in courthouses and classrooms and such please remind them government is not about that.

[SRG2]

Presumably you have an implicit constraint, that this enrichment of the US should not be achieved through coercion, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Absolutely. That's implicit in the formulation above:

"The only possible justification for this sort of evil is that it is unavoidably necessary to avert greater evil. That it's actually being done for the benefit of the people subjected to it.

To tax people, to subject them to mandatory commands backed by threats, for the benefit of OTHER people, not themselves, is just unadulterated evil."

If our government attacks people outside the US just to benefit Americans, isn't that exactly what I said was unjustifiable, just as much as if our government attacks Americans to benefit non-Americans?

[Magister]

Shorter Brett Bellmore: This would be a nice country if it weren't for the government that made it a nice country.

Standard for faux libertarians like Brett, who are only concerned with cashing out social capital for tiny tax breaks.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the government, the present one, did make it a nice country. I think it mostly used to get out of the way of the people making it a nice country, and wish it would go back to getting out of the way.

[Magister]

No anarchy has ever made for a nice country.

[jb]

"To tax people, to subject them to mandatory commands backed by threats, for the benefit of OTHER people, not themselves, is just unadulterated evil."

Shift that formulation away from taxes for a second and see if it still works: is it evil for the government to require you to have liability insurance to drive a car? While that has some theoretical benefit for the driver, the reason it's required (as opposed to collision insurance, which is not) is purely for the benefit of people you might crash into.

[Commenter_XY]

America does not have a stellar record transplanting Jeffersonian democracy to other countries, so it is understandable why prioritizing promotion of democracy has dropped (by one-quarter). Fail enough times, even dummies stop trying.

And DC is full of useless bureaucrats dummies.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem is you cannot really transplant democracy. There has to be basic commitment in the population before you start. For those that study American democracy, you do not start at the Declaration of Independence but rather start at the Magna Carta.

[Commenter_XY]

Agreed = There has to be basic commitment in the population before you start.

[Brett Bellmore]

Democracy is only metastable, you have to almost be a democracy before you can create one.

[Malika la Maize]

A journey of a hundred miles begins with a first step. The question is should we be encouraging steps in the right direction?

[Brett Bellmore]

The question is, does our government even understand what those steps are?

[Malika la Maize]

That’s a case by case assessment I’d say.

[Brett Bellmore]

Minneapolis Radicals Begin Distributing Devices to Disable ICE Vehicles

"Attempt at your own risk."; At least they're demonstrating a little awareness that this is actually a crime.

I wonder at what point in this gradual escalation of anti-government activities the insurrection act kicks in?

[Malika la Maize]

“a local politician revealed.”

[Commenter_XY]

It is a really bad idea for 'John Q Public' to vandalize LEO vehicles. That will get you arrested, or something much, much worse (i.e. Freddie Gray treatment).

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a standard goal of terrorists, to try to provoke a government reaction that will delegitimize the government.

The problem here is that it's not going to generally delegitimize government, the effect is going to be selective, driving up polarization.

I really do think we are on the ramp up to a civil war, and some of these efforts are meant to further that.

[Commenter_XY]

Of course they are = I really do think we are on the ramp up to a civil war, and some of these efforts are meant to further that.

The Neville Singhams and Klaus Schwabs and Alex Soros of the world are dedicated to America's destruction, and fund those efforts.

You know, if I were an uber-lib, I would think long and hard about a Civil War. Just remember, redneck hillbillies have most of the guns in America. The uber-libs will bring signs and pastries and boom boxes; those redneck hillbillies will bring bullets and body-bags to bury the dead uber-libs after the fight is over. It would be a nasty, brutal, and relatively short fight.

It is a fight I absolutely do not want to see.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, in the last decade the left has started arming, too. I don't think in the event of a civil war that would be a big difference.

The real distinction is that the right is anchored in the rural areas, while the left is anchored in the cities, and cities are VERY vulnerable places in civil wars, because they are highly reliant on fragile infrastructure to remain viable.

But if you want less government generally, civil war is a terrible way to accomplish it. The left may be thinking that anything that makes government more powerful favors them, because they can just take that government over, they're really good at subversion.

[Estragon]

Didn’t you guys send your best to J6? I personally am terrified of Stewart Rhodes and his fatso band of cosplaying weirdos. They positively ooze competence and intelligence. I’m sure they’ll be putting libs in body bags on an industrial scale any day now— an outcome that you really really don’t want—honest!

One problem with making absolutely depraved posts for years on end around here is sometimes these empty throw-away gestures toward decency ring somewhat hollow when considered within the larger body of work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course they weren't our best. Of course they were idiots. Nobody who isn't an idiot publicly announces the creation of what amounts to what the government is going to consider a subversive organization. The feds infiltrated and turned it into a honeypot for right wing idiots so fast heads spun.

By the time any such organization is large enough to attract public notice it's so thoroughly compromised it's absurd. And this is so obvious they never attract non-idiots in the first place.

[Estragon]

“The feds infiltrated and turned it into a honeypot for right wing idiots so fast heads spun.”

Brett with another one of his specials! Strangely reminiscent of the whole “Obama stoked the birth certificate thing to trick Republicans into looking like racists” theory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you missed this?

F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest

Organizations like the Proud Boys are unavoidably populated by idiots; Joining such an organization is like taping a "surveil and arrest me!" sign on your back.

[Estragon]

You need to take the next logical step. Joe Biggs was an FBI “informant.”

Who was he “informing” on? You want me to spoil the punch line for you or you want to try and figure it out yourself?

[David Nieporent]

"Informants" are not the same thing as "infiltrators," let alone — as you insinuate — people secretly controlling the organization to catch others.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, in theory "informants" aren't "infiltrators" or "agents provocateur". In theory, anyway.

[Estragon]

You didn’t respond above. Whom do you think Joe Biggs was “informing” on?

[SRG2]

It's a standard goal of terrorists, to try to provoke a government reaction that will delegitimize the government.

You're attempting to imply that therefore people who try to provoke said reaction are terrorists. It does not follow. What makes terrorists terrorists - in the actual meaning, not the modern GOP usage - is that terror is inflicted on civilians in order to get the government to act. Going directly after the government is by definition not terrorism regardless of the tactics used. Threatening the families of government officials, not the officials themselves - as done by Trump supporters routinely of judges and legislators - that is terrorism, though implicitly approved of by Trump and cultists here.

[Michael P]

Going directly after the government is by definition not terrorism regardless of the tactics used.

That's not true at all. For example, take the 1996/7 UN definition at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#UN_Comprehensive_Convention_(1997%E2%80%93present) -- it explicitly includes targeting public property.

[Brett Bellmore]

It really hinges not on who you target, but your objective. If your objective is extorting a policy change, and you're using illegal means, you're a terrorist.

[SRG2]

Nope.

[Brett Bellmore]

Equally authoritatively, yup.

[SRG2]

Blackmail is not terrorism. Under your definition, it would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will admit that you have something like a point, and we should probably limit this to crimes that are actual attacks on people, not mere offers to refrain from revealing something unsavory.

I've long been uncomfortable with the clash between blackmail laws and the 1st amendment.

[John 4]

Brett, you can just say, “You’re right; I didn’t consider the overall logic,” instead of being a weasel.

[David Nieporent]

Blackmail is not terrorism. Under your definition, it would be.

Because Brett left out the part that's understood: that it has to be violent to be terrorism.

[ducksalad]

If your objective is extorting a policy change, and you're using illegal means, you're a terrorist.

You just defined all civil disobedience as terrorism. Even campaign finance violations and unauthorized redistricting could be called terrorism under your definition.

Maybe you want to sharpen it up a little bit.

[SRG2]

Fake libertarian is fake libertarian...

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't need to sharpen it up, you need to realize that I didn't put that word "extort" in there just for fun.

Actual civil disobedience, of the Rosa Parks sort, does not involve the extortion element. It just aims to force the government to very publicly enforce the very law you're protesting in the hope that the public will decide that enforcement is unjust.

[ducksalad]

Very publicly enforcing a law is in fact a policy decision. Rosa Parks was trying to force that policy decision.

Do you have some principled way to distinguish "force" from "extort"? I would suggest the distinction is exactly what SRG suggested - using terror or in other words fear.

I don't dispute that letting the air out of tires is illegal and deserving of arrest even if the cause is good. I do mock the idea that it's terrorism, because it doesn't create terror in a person of ordinary (or even sub-ordinary) fortitude.

[Brett Bellmore]

You extort when you threaten to do something you have no right to do, in order to compel somebody to do something else.

Civil disobedience classically involves you protesting a law by violating exactly that law, in the expectation that the public conscience will be offended by enforcement of the law.

Of course, it only works in cases where the public conscience actually WOULD be offended by enforcement of the law. It doesn't work where the public would actually approve of the law.

I don't think Renee Good was protesting the existence of traffic laws, so that was not classic civil disobedience. It was just obstructing federal officers in enforcing a (nationally) popular law.

I actually agree with you that the existing legal definitions of terrorism are too broad.

[ducksalad]

Just to be clear, I didn't say Good was doing strict-definition civil disobedience. I just object to calling it terrorism.

If you prefer a more generic term, I think any reasonable person would agree that up to moment she started moving the car, it could be called "non-violent resistance".

After that it's about intent. One could conclude that she wasn't doing an intentional assault and Ross didn't commit murder. Not every tragedy involves a felony. Sometimes it's just mistakes and poor judgment.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's a bit over the top calling what she was doing terrorism, too, though our anti-terrorism laws are probably sufficiently overbroad to get away with it.

Yes, until she moved the car, it was non-violent resistance. Not necessarily lawful, but at least nonviolent.

" One could conclude that she wasn't doing an intentional assault and Ross didn't commit murder. "

As I read Minnesota's relevant law,

2011 Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 609 - 624 — Crimes, Criminals
Chapter 609 — Criminal Code
Section 609.21 — Criminal Vehicular Homicide and Injury

She was probably guilty of at least the lowest level of criminal vehicular operation, since putting the car into motion with somebody standing directly in front of her, and somebody else with their arm in the door was reckless, and an injury did result.

I wish she hadn't been shot. I wouldn't have shot, I'd have been too busy getting out of the way. But I think under existing precedent the ICE agent is in the clear.

The whole thing is regrettable, but the key to stopping repetition is putting a stop to encouraging people to criminally obstruct immigration law enforcement, putting themselves in harms way and legal jeopardy.

[Malika la Maize]

If your objective is extorting a policy change, and you're using illegal means, you're a terrorist.

So MLK was a terrorist?

[Brett Bellmore]

Was he extorting a policy change?

[jb]

Brett just made campaign finance violations terrorism.

[David Nieporent]

Going directly after the government is by definition not terrorism regardless of the tactics used.

I'm not sure what the source of your definition is, and (as I mentioned above) I don't think it matches common usage. It would, e.g., exclude Tim McVeigh from the definition of terrorist. As well as many other acts long labeled international terrorism, from the car bombings of the U.S. embassy and marine barracks in Lebanon to the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Venezuela to the many IRA attacks on police stations in Northern Ireland.

[hobie]

I thought you boys supported going against big gubmint?

[Armchair]

Here's a different question.

At what point can the organization begin to be investigated and detained as RICO?

[not guilty]

"At what point can the organization begin to be investigated and detained as RICO?"

Parse the relevant statutes, which are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.

Like all criminal statutes, the racketeering statutes are construed strictly, and RICO prosecutions are disfavored and difficult to prove.

[Armchair]

"Parse the relevant statutes, which are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968."

So yes.

Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274

[Mr. Bumble]

"Like all criminal statutes, the racketeering statutes are construed strictly, and RICO prosecutions are disfavored and difficult to prove."
Didn't seem to stop Ms. Fanni.

[Malika la Maize]

Was her RICO prosecution successful?

[David Nieporent]

Also, that was Georgia's state RICO law, which is much more expansive than the federal law. As Andrew Fleischman pointed out, about a decade ago Cherokee County prosecuted some court reporters under state RICO for using too big margins on the transcripts they produced. (Court reporters charge by the page, so by using bigger margins the transcripts required more pages and thus the court reporters made more money.)

[Moderation4ever]

The only organization I have read in the article is ICE. Are you suggesting treating ICE under RICO?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, the left accomplishes everything without organizations.

Look, just because you don't incorporate in Delaware and publish an organizational chart doesn't mean you're not an organization. There is a long history of organizational structures designed to obscure lines of command and make it difficult to locate leaders. And revolutionary movements usually resort to them.

[Sarcastr0]

I knew Brett would get to Antifa in no time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Antifa is hardly the only cell structured left wing organization out there, Sarcastr0. I'm just saying that, no matter how convenient you'd find it if we pretended that there were no organizations behind criminal left-wing initiatives, we're not going to cooperate with the pretense.

[Sarcastr0]

No evidence, just fan fiction.
That's Brett's Antifa!

His political thriller - now with civil war! - continues to be lame and overdramatic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I already said that we're not going to comply with your demand to pretend there are no organizations involved. Repeating the demand isn't going to change that.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's proof there's an organization is Brett posting there's an organization over and over again.

He just really wants a good villain for his novel, and the legions of sabotaging leftist he imagines in every organization in the world don't quite have the same verve as Antifa.

[Brett Bellmore]

The degree to which this is driven by organizations will be determined by investigating the people doing it, not by a prior conviction that there is no organization.

Starting from an unalterable assumption that there are no organizations behind it is a stupid thing to do, unless you think there are such organizations, and want to shelter them from accountability.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 hours ago
"No evidence, just fan fiction.
That's Brett's Antifa!"

\
Another pathetic attempt by Sardumbo to waive away basic facts -

[hobie]

All the protests I've been to over the past two decades, I still haven't met or seen a single ANTIFA member. T

[John 4]

“cell structured”

I would love to read more about this. Source?

[Brett Bellmore]

Clandestine cell system

[John 4]

I meant in relation to Antifa, you donut. You didn’t just make that up, didja?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Although antifa groups are very real, and often collaborate, there is not an overarching organization. "

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-solidarity/

[Brett Bellmore]

I think whether there's an overarching organization is something that would have to be determined by a lot of investigation, not just taken on faith. Because if there was one, they sure as heck wouldn't want anybody knowing it.

[Moderation4ever]

Would you say that is that case right now in the US that a populist figurehead, failing physically and mentally, is the President but the real power is in the hands of a group of staffers. This group is dedicated to a more white Christen centered and more authoritarian government?

[John F. Carr]

"There is a long history of organizational structures designed to obscure lines of command"

I worked in an organization where the org chart was a secret. I did know who my boss was.

We were not terrorists. When my boss had a beef with the government he sued.

[SRG2]

At a point 10 seconds after your answering someone else's question, i.e., on the Greek Kalends.

[Bunny495]

As a fairly recent Tesla owner I went through the libtards keying Teslas or wrorse. Problem was it was easy to ID the perps due to Tesla's sentry mode. Take that however you want.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, they're using 3d printed disposable gadgets that screw on to tire valves in place of the cap, to deflate the tires. Locking valve stem caps are likely to become popular if this catches on.

[Armchair]

See, that sounds like obstruction of justice. Organized obstruction of justice, plus another crime...

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes, if you're talking about the 'protesters' emptying the tires of government cars.

No, if you're talking about government agencies adopting the use of tire valve stem locks to make emptying their tires harder.

[Bunny495]

The key is does the wording cross the free speech line into obstruction of conspiracy.

[Michael P]

The "key" for that particular product -- and others I see -- appears to simply be an Allen wrench. Am I missing something? Or are there valve stem locks that are not trivially defeated?

[Brett Bellmore]

The profile on the key is a bit different from a standard Allen wrench, but really the goal is just to make deflating the tire something that requires a tool and a bit of time, not something you could do with your fingers.

The longer it takes them, the more exposure to being caught they have.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are they thinking that's somehow legally different than just slashing the tires?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, of course it's different.

1. Less basis for charging you with property damage.
2. Slashing tires is DANGEROUS. Like throw the knife into your face, bang that leaves you permanently deaf, dangerous.
3. This renders it hard to pull off inconspicuously.

[Malika la Maize]

Was your Tesla keyed?

[Bunny495]

No but I tend to keep it in the covered parking at my condo behind a locked gate to enter the complex or frequent places with obvious security cameras; not to mention I live in red Florida. I do think the motivation of those who were keying Teslas has shifted to the next new shiny thing.

[hobie]

All the rituals and objects you hayseeds need to feel safe from the wider world during your day. It must be exhausting

[SRG2]

Obviously keying Teslas is wrong. Depreciation is a far greater punishment LOL

[Commenter_XY]

The numbers are in: we have ~300K fewer useless federal bureaucrats in 2026 than we did in 2025. They're RIF'ed, or they left on their own. I would note the statist geniuses here said over and over like banshees that it could not be done. Guess what, the world as we know it did not end. What do you say now, chumps?

I say keep hacking away...there are only 35 more months to slay the DC Administrative Beast.

[Malika la Maize]

Interestingly it seems many of the top cut agencies were the VA and the respective Armed Forces.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/10/federal-cuts-trump-agencies-data/

[Armchair]

Speaking of the VA. See the below post.

But in short...

"The VA is also investing an additional $800 million in infrastructure improvements to ensure facilities deliver safe and effective patient care. These funds are drawn from savings achieved through various VA reform efforts, like pruning its DC workforce by nearly 30,000 employees last summer.."

[Sarcastr0]

Keep the responsibilities the same, but fire the contracts officers and financial managers that do the job well!

That's not shrinking government.

It is just immiseration of an outgroup, on the backs of the government having any ability in doing the jobs Congress laid out for it to do well.

Everyone loses.

Except for psychos who are just here for the immiseration of an outrgoup.

[Commenter_XY]

It is very significant cost savings

300,000 * 100,000 = 30B annual savings

A good start. Here is hoping you see the trickle-down effect. 😉

[Josh R]

That's 0.1% of GDP. As I had previously posted, DOGE had no chance of having a meaningful impact on the debt.

[Armchair]

"That's 0.1% of GDP."

The fake "it's small compared to a really big number" argument again.

[Josh R]

% of GDP is the correct measure of the impact of the debt.

[Sarcastr0]

1. It's not significant cost savings
2. The actual costs in terms of the government doing the job Congress laid out for it is something you ignore.

Your past posting gloating about the misery of fired civil servants, all of us being forced into the office, and other such nonsense, makes it clear that dollars/cost is more pretext than priority for you.

[Armchair]

$30 billion in cost savings, per year, is significant. Roughly 3% of the entire non-defense discretionary budget.

[jb]

Except in a lot of cases that government had to hire contractors to replace the employees. Oops!

This is why Congress actually needs to be involved in the process--you need to decrease budgets and responsibilities of the government if you actually want to save money.

[Sarcastr0]

No, we're not allowed to hire service contractors.

And the ones we have are forbidden to travel or have government equipment to take home, so they're all coming into the office as well. Which we do not have the space for.

And spending marginally less on personnel does not means you're not less overall; Congress is still giving us roughly the same budget; the DOGE just moved it around between boxes in contravention of Congressional direction.

The only real thing accomplished from what I see is loss of talent, general confusion and chaos, and making government worse. No savings, no upside other than spite.

[jb]

"No, we're not allowed to hire service contractors."

I'm just going by this CATO study that says that they did:

https://www.cato.org/blog/doge-produced-largest-peacetime-workforce-cut-record-spending-kept-rising-0

[Sarcastr0]

They're right as to the bottom line - this has saved no money.

The contractor thing may vary agency to agency, but DOGE's directives and audits of our contractors, and consulting contracts, seemed not agency-specific to me.

They were also kept internal, and not advertised. So Cato is forgiven for speculating contractors could be brought in.

[Armchair]

Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins is touting significant reforms in serving America's veterans, arguing the Trump administration is reversing Biden-era trends by increasing visits while reducing backlogs and wait times

Backlog of vets waiting for benefits down more than 49%
The improvements have come quickly in many areas that were suffering prior to Collins taking over the department.

The backlog of veterans waiting for VA benefits has decreased more than 49% (and up to 57% in later reports) since January 20, 2025, following a 24% increase during the Biden Administration.

To improve convenience and timeliness of care, the VA has opened 20 new health care clinics nationwide, expanding services for veterans across the country. Since January 20, 2025, the department has provided more than 1.4 million appointments outside normal operating hours, including early-morning, evening, and weekend slots, offering veterans greater flexibility.

The VA is also investing an additional $800 million in infrastructure improvements to ensure facilities deliver safe and effective patient care. These funds are drawn from savings achieved through various VA reform efforts, like pruning its DC workforce by nearly 30,000 employees last summer.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/va-goes-biden-backlog-trump-turbo-claims-cleared-and-clinics-opened

[Malika la Maize]

Just The News!

[Armchair]

Do you contradict anything there?

See, you were just bitching about the VA cutting bureaucrats in DC. But you failed to realize what was done with those funds. They were used to help vets everywhere across the country. Reducing wait times, increasing infrastructure.

Your previous Washington Post piece failed to mention that. If you only read one "side"...you don't have all the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a bare assertion by a member of this Admin posted by an outlet that has credibility problems to begin with, and certainly didn't bother to check anything that was said.

So really, it's more that nothing here establishes anything. Except that you'll believe whatever the admin says without bothering to check it.

You probably think Mussolini made the trains run on time as well.

[Sarcastr0]

Actual veterans' opinions don't seem as enthusiastic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Veterans/comments/1pnvcqw/va_to_reorganize_community_care_contracts/

The proof of the numbers will be in the people being served saying they are better served, not in this lying admin lying.

[Armchair]

Oh, a random reddit post....Let's trust the random anecdote over the official polling...

"Veteran trust in VA has increased 25% since 2016, reaches all-time high"
https://news.va.gov/press-room/veteran-trust-va-increased-25-since-2016-high/

[Sarcastr0]

It's the veterans' replies I'm interested in.

You posted another post from this administration, I see.

LOL.

[Armchair]

I post actual data and polls.

You trust a single commenter on reddit instead.

Sometimes...you're a joke.

[Sarcastr0]

You post the government saying they did a poll and they turn up winners.

In previous administrations that'd be enough.

This admin lies, actually.

Here's the historical chart:
https://department.va.gov/veterans-experience/trust/veteran-trust-in-va/

Maybe not the amazing achievement you thought, eh?

No one does gullible like you, Armchair!

[Bunny495]

As a vet in the VA health care system since the 1990s due to 100% service connected disability I have long term experience dealing with the VA. Over those years the biggest upheaval was when Obama floated the idea that the VA should be open to Medicaid recipients with the result that he quickly backtracked when pols from both sides of the aisle told him to stick it up his ass sideways. While I don't always agree with everything the VA does on the whole, I have been a happy camper. The thing is I have always followed the Woody Allen rule that 90% of life is showing up and 95% of life is showing up on time. A lot of the gripes I see are from vets who show up late or miss an appointment and then are unhappy about how long it takes to reschedule. I also saw a vet who might have been somewhat mistreated when I was in the recovery room after my cancer operation (the cancer was definitely not related to Agent Orange exposure since I don't suffer from diabetes (the VA criteria is diabetes is a necessary factor of Agent Orange exposure, something I never understood). The doctor quickly removed his bandage in a seemingly painful manner, but only after grabbing the cigarette out of his mouth and throwing it in the trash can, much to the delight of the other ten patients in the recovery room. Point is show up on time and don't smoke in a hospital (or act like a jerk) and the treatment is good.

[CountmontyC]

Sometimes?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 likes to use anecdata.

[Sarcastr0]

I've made it quite clear that I do not, actually.

Anecdotes are useful as a counterexample, however.

The VA's had problems despite this survey for quite some time, across multiple administrations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I've made it quite clear that I do not, actually."

When? Not the many, many times you have said "I spoke to X and this unnamed person [or people] proved my point".

[apedad]

I like how the va.gov article is from 2024.

Thanks Biden!

[Armchair]

I like how Sarc just instantly dismissed it, without even reading. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Oh, a random reddit post....Let's trust the random anecdote over the official polling...

"Veteran trust in VA has increased 25% since 2016, reaches all-time high"
https://news.va.gov/press-room/veteran-trust-va-increased-25-since-2016-high/

For the record, that was from 2024 — in other words, before the supposed improvements being touted by Collins.

[Armchair]

Here you go. 2025.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/14/1181827077/va-hospitals-health-care

[Malika la Maize]

Armchair posts a piece by a source so discredited Fox dismissed him which relies on essentially a press release by a Congresscritter and then talks about reading one side. Lol

[Malika la Maize]

Have you ever thought about leaving the U.S., and starting over somewhere else? Maybe living the hygge lifestyle in Denmark, or soaking up the sun in Costa Rica? According to Gallup – a surprising number of women are considering it. In a poll released in November, 40% of women between the ages of 18 and 44 said they'd move to another country permanently if they had the chance. That's four times higher than it was a decade ago – and this sentiment among women is unique to the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/07/nx-s1-5665105/enough-is-enough-is-it-time-to-leave-america

[Armchair]

Sure. Then let's see what happens when they need to try to support themselves and get a job.

Then they realize...oh, time to go back to the US.

[Commenter_XY]

A country without AWFLs is a better country; certainly more tranquil, with less nagging, hectoring and self-righteous lecturing.

Can we give the AWFLs who want to leave 1K and a plane ticket?

[Malika la Maize]

No wonder so many women want to leave.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you need a plane ticket? 😛

[Malika la Maize]

If all the women leave I indeed would like to go where they are, YMMV.

[Commenter_XY]

All women are not AWFLs. I find AWFLs are about as attractive as old dishrags (I know, I know, we should not comment on looks) and have repellant personalities.

Here is an example of an AWFL I don't mind leaving. BTW, it never gets old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs

[Sarcastr0]

Not all blacks are niggers. I find the niggers as violent as apes (I know, we should not comment on their savagery) and have a rapists' personality.

::skipping a video because you know the type::

[Commenter_XY]

Why Sarcastr0, I never knew you were a disgusting racist and an anti-semite. You and DDHarriman, perfect together. Who knew?

[DDHarriman]

All this time I thought we were polar opposites. It's good to see we have some common ground to build bonds around.

[DDHarriman]

" I find the niggers as violent as apes (I know, we should not comment on their savagery) and have a rapists' personality."
-- Sarcastr0 1/12/2026

Welcome to the fold, Brother. I welcome you to the world of empiricism and race reality.

[Frank Drackman]

Senator Bird speaks from the Grave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

Thinking AWFL is the same as your slur is just dumb.

AWFL is just a form of calling a woman a "karen" which is a left term. It was the left who coined “Central Park Karen”, for instance.

[Malika la Maize]

I think he’s analogizing bigoted generalizations not equating the term, no?

[Malika la Maize]

Your being quite silly, affluent white girls are probably more likely to be attractive (they have money to join gyms, buy beauty products, etc., often are born into considerable cultural capital which means they’re more likely to eat well and such).

[Commenter_XY]

Tell that to Luke Crywalker....lmao.

[Malika la Maize]

?

[Commenter_XY]

That crying lady is called Luke Crywalker.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Don't affluent black, Asian, etc. girls have those things?

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, but XY was talking about affluent white girls.

[Bunny495]

No one would ever confuse me as a supporter of AWFLs. Thing is there more BFLs (Broke Female Libtards) who have the same feeling. Recent details about Renee Good are that she and her wife moved to Canada and soon returned to America where Renee's mother wound up paying her rent and bills with Renee's only stable source of income being VA survivor benefits (Dependency and Indemnity Compensation) to support her son. Interestingly while recent polls show 53% of AWFLs support the dems 58% of the BFLs support the dems. What do you guys have to say about my made-up words.

[Mr. Bumble]

@ Qualika:
"...said they'd move to another country permanently if they had the chance."
What constitutes a chance?

[hobie]

There's a reason why our birthrate is so low and the vast majority of songs by Black and country female artists are about getting the fuck away/out, and more than 50% of Russian women are lesbian.

[Z Crazy]

Will women have better luck in places like Estonia or the Philipines?

I think most of the men there who would be willing to hook up with them are more interested in the green card than their pussies!

[hobie]

I suppose it isn't easy to find a culture somewhere on earth that isn't dominated by hyper-toxic masculinity. Based on my experience, I would say Scandinavia and Germany come close

[Z Crazy]

A lot of women in the U.S. live where the men around them are efimanate and limp-wristed, so they want to go to places like Estonia and the Philipines.

Do they have a chance with men in those places?

[Malika la Maize]

“A lot of women in the U.S. live where the men around them are efimanate and limp-wristed”

Near your house?

[hobie]

"A lot of women in the U.S. live where the men around them are efimanate and limp-wristed"

The funny part is that he doesn't even realize that this sort of insecure, fear-based MAGA talk is precisely why the women aren't clamoring for the MAGA man.

[TwelveInchPianist]

At least that's what the experts say.

[Malika la Maize]

Holy shit! She has “8 NYT bestsellers” in her X name? Just when I thought she couldn’t be more pathetic

[Sarcastr0]

If your Naomi be Klein
You're doing just fine
If your Naomi be Wolf
Oh buddy, big oof

[Malika la Maize]

Amazon has decided to end its long running delivery relationship with the United States Postal Service, marking a major shift in how the retail giant moves packages across the country. The partnership, which dates back roughly three decades, played a key role in helping Amazon scale its fast delivery model while providing USPS with billions of dollars in annual shipping revenue. According to recent reports, the decision comes as USPS continues to face mounting financial strain, including a reported $9.5 billion loss in its most recent fiscal year.

For years, USPS served as a critical delivery backbone for Amazon, especially in rural and remote areas where private carriers often struggle to operate profitably. The Postal Service’s unmatched national reach allowed Amazon to deliver packages to nearly every address in the country. As Amazon’s shipping volume exploded, the relationship became one of the most significant public private logistics partnerships in the United States.

However, changes in contract negotiations and USPS efforts to restructure its package delivery pricing appear to have pushed Amazon toward a different strategy. Instead of renewing the existing agreement, Amazon is shifting more deliveries to its rapidly expanding in house logistics network, signaling a decisive break from a partnership that helped define modern ecommerce delivery.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amazon-ends-usps-partnership-after-9-5-billion-loss-affecting-100-000-workers/ar-AA1TPps3

[Brett Bellmore]

Utilizing the postal service this way was something they did when they were growing fast, so that they could concentrate on other areas. I don't think it was ever intended to be permanent, they were always going to move delivery back in eventually, so they'd have better control over it.

[Moderation4ever]

I hope people will understand the importance of the USPS in the rise of Amazon. It is often pointed out that the idea of "I made it on my own" is a fallacy. That is not not to say that people don't advance because of their own hard work, but rather that it is their work and vision supported by the work of other people and the government that make them a success. The USPS was critical in the start of Amazon and or all the criticism of the Covid19 response it likely helped boost Amazon sales.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with this notion is that the USPS was just as important to the rise of all the competing companies that... didn't rise. It's like crediting the marathon winner's win to the atmosphere, not their efforts.

And Amazon never was fully reliant on the USPS. They used every delivery service out there, UPS, Fedex, DHL, you name it. The USPS was just part of the mix.

Admittedly it was convenient to them that one of the services out there had a subsidized distribution network in low population areas. I'm just saying it was never essential.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the kind of tangle you gotta get into when you insist the government is useless in wealth creation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying that government isn't what's driving wealth creation. That doesn't mean things like the postal service are "useless", they obviously get used if they're there. But Fedex and UPS and DHL got used, too, so there's no particular reason to think that Amazon would have been a failure without the USPS.

If you want wealth creation, government isn't driving it, at most it's providing the conditions under which it can occur.

[Malika la Maize]

I think by useful here what is meant is provided something other services weren’t but helped establish the company, here the rural service.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like rural areas, by preference would still be living in one, but the portion of the population that lives in places that wouldn't have parcel service but for the USPS is tiny, economically insignificant.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not just but for, it’s that it’s subsidized.

[Brett Bellmore]

But my point is that it's not all that helpful to the development of a company like Amazon that 100K people in a country of 330M are getting subsidized parcel delivery. It's not a big enough market to be economically significant.

Even Dick Pronneke got parcels delivered, and not by the USPS.

[hobie]

I say let Amazon blow billions of their own money in gas and time to haul bump stocks all around empty west Texas or such. I think we'll see them drop rural deliveries

[Armchair]

That's a bit misleading.

Amazon used USPS services for the "last mile" shipping, as they were the cheapest option. Amazon would ship the packages themselves to a central facility, then drop them off at the local post office/distribution center. And USPS would be the cheapest option to send the packages to the doors, as they were going there anyway. Amazon could've used UPS or Fed-Ex. It would just have been slightly more expensive.

Amazon used lots of different companies in its business model. From the aircraft from Boeing to gasoline purchased from Mobil to packaging purchased from other businesses. USPS simply fit into that model.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure sounds like USPS served as a critical delivery backbone for Amazon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, if you ignore that they weren't the only people doing delivery, they were just one of several delivery methods being used.

[Malika la Maize]

But they were probably key to many rural deliveries, don’t you think?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say they were "key to rural delivery" only to the extent that, as rural delivery through the Postal service was subsidized, private delivery services were not as competitive in extremely low density rural areas.

They certainly were competitive in ordinary rural areas such as I used to live in, places where the main occupation was farming.

I'd say the percentage of the population living in areas with such low population density that, absent the USPS, they wouldn't have parcel delivery, is microscopic. Not big enough to be economically significant.

So, sure, in a world without the USPS somebody living in the Alaskan wilderness might have trouble getting a delivery. You think that influences whether Amazon could be a commercial success?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not arguing there success wouldn’t have happened but for the USPS but that they were useful to that success.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, then we don't have any argument. I'm not arguing that they didn't find the USPS convenient, just that it wasn't essential.

[Malika la Maize]

then we don't have any argument

That’s good.

[Armchair]

No....see, you're misusing the word "critical" there.

What you meant was USPS was used as the cheapest option. If it wasn't there, they would've used a different option, and just passed on the delivery costs.

[Bunny495]

Maybe a little OT but I have noticed a significant drop in the amount of junk mail I am getting. For a long time I had a trash can set up in my screened in porch and the locked mailbox in the covered parking for the sole purpose of disposing 90%+ mail which was junk. I am not sure why since I never requested it but both my main and backup credit cards have a $US30K+ limit and my Amazon CC is $US17K yet I still got multiple CC offers in the mail all unsolicited. Same for all the nice people who want to sell me an extended warranty even thought my Tesla still has over 8 years on the factory warranty. My understanding is the cost of junk mail postage was far less than what I pay to send the few letters I mail. Anyone else notice this.

[Malika la Maize]

What’s your time frame? We still get about the same junk mail* we got a year ago but far less than we got, say, twenty years ago.

*I don’t like to call it junk mail, there’s often coupons I use in there.

[Bunny495]

As XY noted there has been an increase in SPAM and often that contains printable coupons. One thing I have noticed is Subway often sends flyers with coupons but the local Subway has signs on the door that they don't honor coupons. Mybe I am just jaded but I don't trust any ads.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve noticed the same thing with all three of my local Subways! They should have to lose their franchise if they keep not honoring them.

[ducksalad]

Which tells me you still go to a lot of Subways despite the scam/spam. So it's not hurting them, why not continue....

[Malika la Maize]

If they’re not honoring the franchise’s policies they should lose their franchise.

[Bob from Ohio]

Have you seen their franchise agreements? It may very well not require a franchise to honor corporate ads.

The subway near my office charges slightly higher prices than the one near my home.

[ducksalad]

Or it could be that corporate headquarters looked at how much they bring in from the franchise fees versus the consequences of not enforcing franchise policies and made a cold hard financial decision.

Not to be too specific but I've ignored some rental restrictions and credit card deadlines and the landlord and BoA both decided it was worth overlooking based on how much they were making off me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, that too.

[Malika la Maize]

If that’s true it’s terrible franchise policy. If a franchise spends millions telling people “bogo foot long subs here!” and people go and are told they’re not it’s rightly going to sour people on the franchise overall.

[ducksalad]

If bait-and-switch wasn't sometimes effective, the tactic would've died out thousands of years ago. It's alive and well, and amenable to careful statistical analysis about whether it's a good strategy or not.

And that's why I made the observation that you went back a second and third time.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding. Like that time Primestar offered this fantastic deal to buy your equipment in return for much reduced charges... a few months before they merged with DirecTV, and the equipment became useless.

You'll never convince me the merger wasn't already in the works.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’ve noticed the same thing with all three of my local Subways! They should have to lose their franchise if they keep not honoring them."

Don't the ads have language to the effect that the cited specials might not be available at all locations?

[David Nieporent]

If you look at any coupons — or promotional offers — for any chain in any industry, it will say, "At participating locations" in the fine print.

[Commenter_XY]

Junk mail got replaced by junk emails and junk text messages and a boatload of junk telephone calls.

[John F. Carr]

Last summer I got a glossy card from a Polaris dealer in Colorado Springs at my house in Massachusetts. I had probably visited their web site. I didn't leave my email address or phone number. The dealer's advertising partner was able to convert my IP address to a street address. The card didn't have my name. I wondered, did they truly not know or did they decline to say? Ten years ago or more people started thinking it was creepy when targeted ads in the mail were too specific.

[Commenter_XY]

I get boatloads of text msgs asking to buy my home in the People's Republic. It gets annoying.

[John F. Carr]

One call recently from a home flipping company offering about 75% of assessed value.

[John F. Carr]

I noticed a drop in junk mail five or more years ago. There have been days when no mail of any kind arrives.

[ducksalad]

Here it went down like you say from about 2020 until 2025. Then about six months ago it exploded, and some days we get a six inch thick stack, mostly charity appeals.

I believe Mrs. Ducksalad unwisely sent a paper check and our address to a low-grade charity that resells their mailing list. We've been tagged as late boomer suckers that respond to direct mailing, a small but lucrative market.

[DDHarriman]

You should see all the shit I get for my Rolls and lambo.

It's insane.

[Frank Drackman]

Is it Imaginary Shit to match your Imaginary Rolls and Imaginary "Lambo"??(love how you don't even go through the masquerade of trying to spell "Lamborghini")

Frank

[DDHarriman]

If you've been to Auburn any time recently you could've seen them for yourself.

My daily drivers don't need the formality. That's like you demanding from your family to call your main source of calories by it's proper name instead of just 'government cheese'. American Processed Cheese Food.

[Malika la Maize]

In what may be the biggest upset in the long history of English soccer's FA Cup, sixth-tier non-league team Macclesfield FC stunned defending champions Crystal Palace with a 2-1 victory in the third round on Saturday, sending shockwaves through the country's much-loved sport…

The result marks the first time in 117 years that a side from outside the major national leagues has eliminated the reigning FA Cup holders — the last being Crystal Palace themselves when they beat Wolverhampton Wanderers back in 1909.

Statistically, the gap of five divisions between the two clubs makes this the most improbable "giant-killing" moment in FA Cup history — a competition long cherished for its democratic magic, where amateur players can, on their day, topple the game's elite.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/11/nx-s1-5673942/historic-upset-soccer-fa-cup-macclesfield-beat-crystal-palace

[SRG2]

It was a fantastic result. I can recall a number of astonishing upsets in the Cup, but this was indeed #1.

I think that it would be possible to have a similar competition in baseball in the US. Qualifying rounds for AA baseball teams, then they play AAA teams in the first round, and then later go into a draw with MLB teams. One game only, no seeding, home draw determines whether National or American league rules. Because scoring isn't easy, there's always the chance of the occasional upset.

[Michael P]

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORSOS/bulletins/4039fc4

Oregon has kept 800,000+ names on its voter rolls in spite of them meeting statutory rules for removal as inactive. And still won't remove additional ones because it decided to remove a warning from its registration cards in 2017. This reeks of impropriety.

[Malika la Maize]

“Inactive voters do not receive ballots.”

From the source.

[Michael P]

Another leftist illustrates why the left wants to disarm the public.

https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/venezuelas-hated-interior-minister-touts-the-states-monopoly-on-arms/

[MarkJawz]

The left is throwing a tantrum over "politicized prosecutions" with respect to the subpoenas given to the Fed. I don't remember hearing anything from them after Operation Chokepoint and after Biden's 4 years of politically targeted prosecutions and investigations of conservative groups.

They support a politicized DOJ, as long as they are the right targets. They're disgusting people.

[SRG2]

Perhaps. So we can assume that you, not being a hypocrite, condemn the current DOJ for politicised prosecutions?

[Michael P]

Only to the extent that we can assume you have no complaints with the current set of prosecutions because they could only be commenced based on honest belief that the government will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of a constitutional law occurred.

[apedad]

Recent grand juries don't think a violation has occurred.

"In the three weeks since President Trump flooded the streets of Washington with hundreds of troops and federal agents, there have been only a few scattered protests and scarcely a word from Congress, which has quietly gone along with the deployment.

But one show of resistance has come from an extraordinary source: federal grand jurors.

In what could be read as a citizens’ revolt, ordinary people serving on grand juries have repeatedly refused in recent days to indict their fellow residents who became entangled in either the president’s immigration crackdown or his more recent show of force. It has happened in at least seven cases — including three times for the same defendant."

https://www.rsn.org/001/grand-juries-in-dc-reject-wave-of-charges-under-trumps-crackdown.html

[DDHarriman]

"grand juries in dc"

That doesn't mean the prosecutions were bad, that could also mean that partisans are using jury nullification in service of their political agendas.

Frankly, the latter is more likely than the former since we've seen much of the evidence and normal humans would convict.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, DC IS after all radically unrepresentative of the nation at large, politically.

DCBOE General election, 2024

Jury nullification of cases Democrats disapprove of is to be expected in a district where almost everybody is a Democrat.

The Constitution would actually permit Congress to establish a larger jury pool for the DC circuit, and they should; It's absurd that all federal cases are heard by juries consisting almost exclusively of members of one party.

[DDHarriman]

Those biased DC jurors are also the people that are supposed to serve the citizenry.

They treat us in their day to day interactions as civil servants the same way they behave on these jury pools.

They don't magically cloth themselves in integrity while getting their over-compensation but then act as partisans when they enter the jury pool and other facets of their lives.

[Malika la Maize]

The majority of DC workers do not work for the federal government.

https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-civilian-jobs-are-in-the-us-federal-government/state/washington-dc/

[MarkJawz]

No, the other half are angry blacks on welfare.

[Frank Drackman]

The majority of DC workers who work for the Federal Government don’t work.
Remember the DC Janitors at the old Walter Reed on Georgia Avenue, about the only things they did were empty paper baskets and put new rolls of Shit Paper out (not on the rollers of course, most of which had been stolen). You wanted blood/body fluids cleaned up in the OR you did it yourself. They had such a problem with stolen Scrubs you had to have a card to get them from a Scrub Machine that was almost always broken, and you couldn’t just wear some Scrubs from another Hospital, what an absolute Shithole.

Frank

[SRG2]

I'm not sure your response makes sense as a reply to my comment.

[DDHarriman]

People need to be held accountable. This is how we do it.

[Malika la Maize]

Selectively!

[DDHarriman]

Prosecutorial discretion, just like DACA.

That's how the system works in the US. Might be different in 3rd world shit holes like India.

[Malika la Maize]

Glad to see you agree it’s selective.

[DDHarriman]

How could it be any other way?

You must be one of the pajeets whose bringing the already low average down.

[TwelveInchPianist]

All prosecutions are selective.

[Riva]

What basis do you have to conclude that anything is politicized? Is Powell above the law ? Does he get a free pass for perjury?

[SRG2]

Do you ask the same question of those who claim that the Biden DOJ was politicised? Is Trump above the law?

[DDHarriman]

Is it possible, in your understanding of how the world works, that the Trump prosecutions could've been politically motivated, but the Powell one isn't?

Does that possibility exist in your universe?

[Malika la Maize]

Is the reverse possible in yours?

Also, Trump has a record of saying he’s going to go after political opponents, so there’s that.

[DDHarriman]

Trump is on record that he's going after political opponents for sham or bogus reasons?

>Is the reverse possible in yours?

It's possible. But I witnessed the history as it unfolded and I drew my own conclusions based upon what I saw. It's too bad you are forbidden from doing that. Or incapable, even?

[Malika la Maize]

Witnessed from your mom’s basement? Maybe that’s why you missed Trump saying he was going after political opponents selectively.

[Riva]

Was this you above: “Perhaps. So we can assume that you, not being a hypocrite, condemn the current DOJ for politicised prosecutions?”

Again, why should we condemn anything? What basis do you have to conclude that anything is politicized? Is Powell above the law ? Does he get a free pass for perjury?

[Malika la Maize]

Not much, just Trump’s words and history.

[DDHarriman]

And don't forget the debanking they did behind the scenes.

[Malika la Maize]

Whataboutism!

[MarkJawz]

We don't take that as an insult anymore. Sorry.

[SRG2]

It's not an insult per se. It's merely a polite "fuck off you coward and hypocrite for your inability to address the question directly."

[DDHarriman]

Putin says he doesn't fear the UK because "they can't even stop rubber boards invading their country or foreigners raping their women and kids."

lmao dang that's harsh. True. but harsh.

[ThePublius]

Rubber boards?

[Brett Bellmore]

Boats, I assume.

[DDHarriman]

Boats, yes. "Boards" was top of mind from another task I was working on.

[Malika la Maize]

Paying his mom board.

[Moderation4ever]

I noted that American Oil Companies did not seem rushed to join in the Trump Administration plan to hijack the Venezuelan people's oil. The companies noted that their investments were twice seized historically. Certainly oil company executives are smarter that the President. They know the days of imperial exploitation of a country's resources is no longer acceptable. The Trump administration needs to first create the kind of ground conditions that will allow oil companies to invest in the necessary infrastructure and be confident that they will get a return in the market. The problem is building those ground conditions will take years.

[ducksalad]

On top of that there's his threats to exclude Exxon Mobil because they displeased him in some trivial way. The oil companies can see that their investments will be subject to the whims of a petty man who is rapidly growing senile. Better to wait until after 2028.

But on the other hand, they'll be subject to his whims on domestic stuff if they don't play ball. "Don't want to invest in Venezuela? No more US drilling permits for you!"

[DDHarriman]

"Help please! Someone please think of Big Oil's dirty fossil fuel profits!!" -- DS circa 2026

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, Trump’s a big opponent of Big Oil!

[Sarcastr0]

Oil companies are very good at political risk analysis. They may not have thought they had to apply these principles to the US, but the tools are there.

[Armchair]

"They know the days of imperial exploitation of a country's resources is no longer acceptable. "

Well.... https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/guyana

[ReaderY]

Now that the Trump administration is normalizing bogus criminal investigations and prosecutions of people who don’t do what he tells them to do, courts need to consider a response.

Lawyers involved in frivolous, politically motivated prosecutions need to know that they will be facing serious sanctions. I would suggest disbarment for life. People who would involve themselves in something like this are simply not suitable for the legal profession and need to be in another line of work.

[John F. Carr]

The revenge against Trump's lawyers in the government began with Jeffrey Clark. He's in big trouble. In my opinion Clark's work inside the Justice Department should not be subject to regulation by DC. In contrast, Lindsey Halligan appeared in federal court and opened herself up to judicial discipline. I think she was out of her depth and a severe scolding or non-permanent punishment would suffice.

[DDHarriman]

Friend,
The people who normalized bogus investigations are currently being held to account.

Hope this helps.

Your friend,
DDH

[ReaderY]

I suppose that like your friend Humpty-Dumpty, you can use a word to mean whatever you choose it to mean.

But for the rest of us, “bogus” means “not supported by evidence,” not “Idon’t like it.” And the investigations into Trump and his cronies were supported by a great deal of evidence. Trump’s investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Powell, not so much.

[DDHarriman]

>And the investigations into Trump and his cronies were supported by a great deal of evidence.

This is just that Good video all over again. I clearly see a professional activist accelerating and injuring the law officer. You see a devout innocent Christian lesbian mom innocently dropping off her six year old and innocently waiving the ICE officers by her innocently stalled car.

Trump's prosecutions were bogus.
Powell surely looks like he lied to Congress and has overseen a $2B fraud-ridden boondoggle to renovate one single building. Shouldn't that project be investigated? Or do should we just turn a blind-eye and go "Government will be government *shrug*"

Oh hey, remember when Congressional perjury was like the greatest crime to ever commit with that old Trump lawyer?

It's weird how it went from a "nothing-burger" to the most serious offense in modern history right back to a "nothing-burger".

[David Nieporent]

Powell surely looks like he lied to Congress and has overseen a $2B fraud-ridden boondoggle to renovate one single building. Shouldn't that project be investigated? Or do should we just turn a blind-eye and go "Government will be government *shrug*"

Powell humiliated Trump on camera several months ago when he contradicted Trump by explaining to him that this figure was for multiple buildings.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump’s investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Powell, not so much."
And you know this how?

[Moderation4ever]

I would start by going on the words of Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. who see the investigation of Powell as another attempt to have direct control of interest rates.

[DDHarriman]

Would you take the word of the Congresswoman who submitted the original referral too, or just his?

[Bob from Ohio]

Just an opinion.

[Armchair]

"Lawyers involved in frivolous, politically motivated prosecutions"
" I would suggest disbarment for life. "

Gonna be a lot of disbarments for 2020-2024 if that's your criteria...

[dwb68]

Reminder: too-low interest rates at time when the government is running massive deficits is inflationary.

Personally Id rather that the deficit shrank to zero and .gov cut spending. Powell keeps rates higher than preferred because the spending is still too damn high.

Trump may not like the cure…but the last thing anyone needs before the midterms is another spike in inflation.

[loki13]

I will make this very short- what Trump is doing is insane. Not just for the country (us), but also for him if he wants to be re-elected.

No country that has attacked the Central Bank's independence has done well. None. The most recent example was Turkey. Inflation was below 10%. Erdogan first said he was going to take control of monetary policy- inflation went to 30% but then fell back as he resorted to a lot of pressure instead of taking full control. Once he installed a loyalist, inflation went to 80%.

IOW, we will suffer. But the only reason he would do this, ASSUMING HE IS A RATIONAL ACTOR, is because he's confident he will not have to worry about elections again.

This would worry me more if I was convinced he was a rational actor or understood how the Fed operates. As it stands, I think he's just doing this for the same reason a dog licks itself.

[Bwaaah]

It's a positive sign that the President denied that he knew about the subpoenas. He is creating political cover for his retreat from this.

He's just running it up the flagpole to see how many [schmucks] salute. Believe it or not, there's a bottom to Trumpism in the Republican party, and this should be scraping up against it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"also for him if he wants to be re-elected"

Him being Trump.

Genius political analysis there Loki! He can't be re-elected.

"because he's confident he will not have to worry about elections again"

Yes, as is everyone since he is term limited.

More brilliance!

[Armchair]

"I will make this very short- what Trump is doing is insane"

Yeah, but you always say that about whatever Trump does. So...what you say doesn't matter. It's always "Trump is doing insane things" from you.

[Armchair]

"Reminder: too-low interest rates at time when the government is running massive deficits is inflationary."

Eh... Ever check Japan out? Japan's running massive deficits. 4-5% of GDP over the last 10 years. Meanwhile they've had a central interest rate of less than 1% that entire time. And inflation in Japan has been quite low. Especially pre-covid.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Multiple justices didn't take part in the decision in the cases cleared away in today's Supreme Court Order List. Kagan provided a reason, as is her norm along with Jackson, in her case.

Alito was among those who recused without comment. Someone flagged news that the reason he did so in another case was apparent. Another person helpfully linked to an official notice from the Court, noting why involving the case heard this morning.

Steve Vladeck noted in his Substack today (he also dropped a notice that one of his daughters is selling Girl Scout cookies, including a link to her providing a TOO CUTE personal statement):

The only other news on the merits docket came Thursday—when the Clerk of the Court, in a letter to the parties, announced that Justice Alito is recusing from a case in which the Court is set to hear argument later today. Specifically, Alito owns stock in ConocoPhillips, which is the parent corporation of Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company—one of the defendants/petitioners in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish. Beyond the broader debate over whether the justices should own individual stocks at all (this whole mess is a good example of why the answer ought to be “no”), there’s also the sketchiness of how the defendants apparently tried to preserve Alito’s participation—by “voluntarily dismissing” Burlington from “the case” prior to the Court’s grant of certiorari, even though it remains a party in the lower courts. Once subsequent briefing made that distinction clearer, Alito correctly (if somewhat belatedly) decided to recuse. Good for him; bad that this kind of behavior by parties is possible in the first place.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011226zor_3d9g.pdf [Today's Order List]

https://substack.com/inbox/post/184166668 [Vladeck w/links]

[John F. Carr]

Two unusual calls for responses to petitions for rehearing. One involves eligibility for habeas relief in a capital case. The other is in an immigration case and documents are not online.

[Estragon]

Don dispenses with the Zapruder film nonsense and tells it like it is!

Q: "Do you believe that deadly force was necessary?"

Trump: "It was highly disrespectful of law enforcement. The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement…Law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff."

Brett Bellmore was complaining about the “smirk” just yesterday! The President just confirmed it— your next smirk could be your last.

[Malika la Maize]

Respect my authoritah!

[Estragon]

One of Don’s more amusing attributes is his ability to abjectly humiliate his lieutenants and most sycophantic supporters.

So let’s pour one out for the denizens who have spent the last several days here— for hours on end, presumably uncompensated— pouring over frame by frame videos from multiple angles, asserting various grievous injuries to Mr Ross, justifying what we all saw with our own eyes. It was all a waste of time. At least people like Tricia McLaughin get paid to spout this stuff. Her husband, too!

Don told it like it is— and said out loud what most of us with two operating brain cells could see immediately: Ross shot Good because he was annoyed by her. She was “disrespecting” him. Fuckin bitch. Not he feared for his life. Not he got run over. Law enforcement shouldn’t have to put up with… disrespect. Your next smirk could be your last. Let that sink in, Trumpists. This is what you wanted— do you really think you or someone you care about won’t be getting it good and hard eventually?

[Estragon]

“Respect my authoritah”

I think a lot of us would prefer Cartman to Don and that shitweasel Steven Miller at this point.

[Frank Drackman]

If Lesbo Karen had she'd still be alive.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks for helping make Estragon’s point!

[Estragon]

Which sort of begs the further question: Frank gets what is going on here.

Does someone who has spent hours and hours— presumably uncompensated over several days— around here justifying what we saw in terms of a normal police encounter (I won’t name names just now) actually believe their now useless excuse-making for Mr Ross?

Or was it more of a self-soothing exercise: deep down they think as Frank does but they are such pussies they can’t admit it, even perhaps to themselves?

[Estragon]

Yes, exactly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if it's followed by mashing your accelerator to the floor while a cop is standing in front of you, sure.

[Estragon]

No, it was about “disrespect.” That smirk from a woman to a man with power you were decrying the other day. That is the justification the President gave, so now it is the justification you must defend. You may do so below:

[Frank Drackman]

All the King's Lawyers from All the King's Progressive Special Interest Groups couldn't put Lesbo Karen back together again.
Wonder if she was an Organ Donor at least, nah, like with Tipping the Progressives are Flintier with their own Shekels/Organs than Ebenezer Scrooge (Who wasn't Jewish BTW, Dingle Dick Hairyman)
Thanks to non-shatter Windshields (HT R Nader?) her Cornea's probably came out just fine, and the Cold Temp helps preserve the Liver/Kidneys/Pancreas until the "Harvest Team" can Scrub.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The only thing the smirk told me was that she wasn't either panicking or unaware there was a cop standing in front of her car.

[Sarcastr0]

A smirk worth killing for!

[Estragon]

I think this about covers it:

deep down they think as Frank does but they are such pussies they can’t admit it, even perhaps to themselves?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if she'd smirked while keeping the car in drive she'd have been fine.

You REALLY do not want to think about the whole "Put the car in drive with an officer of the law directly in front of her" part of this, do you? You really want this to be about anything else than that.

[Estragon]

Who cares? The President says it was about “being disrespectful” and “law enforcement shouldn’t have to put up with that.”

No fearing for his life. No run over and in hospital. No mashing accelerator. Ross used deadly force. Was it justified? Yes, because law enforcement shouldn’t have to put up with disrespect. Don said it, now you can defend it. At least Frank isn’t a pussy like you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who cares? I freaking care, for one. You just don't DO that. It's a horribly reckless thing to do even on dry pavement, let alone under a low traction situation like that.

[Estragon]

The President doesn’t care about that. How do I know? Because he didn’t mention it in response to a question about whether deadly force was justified. He cares about “disrespect.” It’s now up to you to defend the proposition that deadly force is justified by “distrespect” because “law enforcement shouldn’t have to put up with that.”

You should defend that proposition below, unless you are a sniveling coward:

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't HAVE to defend the idea that deadly force is justified by "disrespect". I am under no obligation whatsoever to conform to that MAGA cardboard cutout you have in your head.

[Estragon]

You have just spent the better part of several days here defending this shooting. Dozens of posts, countless hours echoing Administration underlings, parsing angles and acceleration, calculating the mass of Honda SUVs— all for nothing.

The leader of your political movement just came out and publicly shot a hole in your theories— stating openly what anyone with eyes could see from the start— Ross didn’t like Good mouthing off so he shot her. She was “disrespecting” law enforcement and “they shouldn’t have to put up with that.”

Aren’t you at least embarrassed? Sort of annoyed you put in so much time pushing a story you were hoping the normies would swallow only to have Don blab the obvious truth and give the whole game away? You look like a fool, for starters. I suppose that’s a badge of honor in some circles.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why the hell would I be embarrased by anything Trump says? We're different people, I confine my embarrassment to things I say and do.

[Sarcastr0]

The important thing is that both Brett and Trump think the victim is an enemy of the state and deserved what she got.

Trump's more frank about it; Brett's gotta make some fiction to salve his self-image. But they both get there in the end.

[jay.tee]

Brett's gotta make some fiction

It’s not lost on us that Sarcastr0 and Estragon are the only ones generating fiction here.

[Sarcastr0]

"The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement…Law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff."

Your lies about what happened are not going to be able to run away from that reveal.

This is what it looked like, and what calling her bitch after shooting her suggested - a thug retaliating for being disrespected.

And you're running cover for that thug murdering the disrespecting lady. Because they have the color of government authority and you're the worst libertarian.

Hiding behind a smirk does the opposite of helping you not look like an apologist for summary executions for noncompliant citizens.

[Bob from Ohio]

what calling her bitch after shooting her suggested - I got hit by a car and had to shoot, think of the paperwork

Libs having fainting spells over bad words is nothing but hilarious.

Every lib pol in the last six months has used f**k constantly, probably cause some consultant said it made them look tough.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we all know you are an edgy edgy man.

f**k
Or maybe you're a puritain?

Surface-level chivalry alongside performative nihilism just makes you look confused.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is what it looked like, and what calling her bitch after shooting her suggested - a thug retaliating for being disrespected."

Yeah, I'm sure after that lady's wife was mean to him, he said to himself, "boy, if that bitch's wife ever tries to kill me, she's going to be sorry she said that!"

[Sarcastr0]

I don't even know what you're getting at.

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 laughs, but...

Perceived intention matters.

If you've got a gun, and it just happens to point towards a cop by accident...they'll may yell at you to drop it.

If you've got a gun, and are busy angrily yelling at the cops or being hostile towards them, then point the gun at them...you may get a different response.

If you act hostile towards the cop, then point a lethal weapon at them....they can defend themselves.

[John 4]

I think you’ve confused rigor mortis with vehicular assault.

[David Nieporent]

"Mashing the accelerator to the floor" to get the car all the way up to sub-bicycle speeds!

[Armchair]

That's like arguing that you shouldn't be able to shoot a suspect who has a gun pointed at you, because he hasn't actually shot you yet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Good thing no one has ever been injured by being hit by a bicycle.

[David Nieporent]

One is not allowed to shoot someone to avoid scrapes and bruises.

[TwelveInchPianist]

People get killed on bicycles, not to mention by bicycle-speed traveling cars.

[Bunny495]

The first thing my first law school prof said on the first day of class was I don't expect anyone to turn in anything to me that has not been edited at least ten times. Graham v. Connor established the "Objective Reasonableness" standard. It famously states that the "calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments".

While none of the videos of Ross shooting Good are dispositive to my satisfaction they do seem to establish that Ross only drew his weapon after Good shifted the vehicle in to forward with the engine revving and the rear wheels spinning on an icy road. While Good was moving in reverse Ross's weapon was holstered. Not to mention Becca Good was screaming 'Drive baby, drive' as Renee accelerated the car in Ross's direction.

It is all too easy to sit at a keyboard with all the time in the world watching a video in slow motion with the ability to back it up frame by frame and frame an opinion. On the other hand standing out in the cold listening to several ICE Watch legal observers/activists/outside agitators/whatever you want to call them blowing car horns, whistles, and yelling in to amplified microphones and having an erratic driver shift in reverse (making being in front of the vehicle a safe place) and suddenly shift in forward and spin the rear tires on an icy street to accelerate in your general direction makes decision making a totally different process.

Combined with qualified immunity I don't see any way Ross does not enjoy the rest of his life with the 350K and counting from his Gofundme account.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — Alteratively it is you in front of that car, clutching the hand of a 4-year-old child. What is the first thing you do when that car goes into reverse? Stand there to see what happens next? Reach for a gun if you happen to be packing one?

See? Replace the murder motive with a safety motive and the safe alternative becomes undeniable. It became clear than no attack was intended. The victim lived long enough to prove that. But even if an attack had been intended, the interval between the first motion of that car, and the time the first shot was fired, was far longer than necessary to move in a way that would have thwarted even the most malevolent attack with that car.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The thin-skinned nature of Trump is duly noted.

Some people online also have thin skins and are triggered easily.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some people online also have thin skins and are triggered easily."
Loki for instance

[JoeFromtheBronx]

James Patterson has written about a million (rough estimate) books, including many co-written with others, including Dolly Parton and Bill Clinton. So, it is not too surprising that I read one.

Emma on Fire is a book he cowrote and released last year. He noted in an author's note a personal connection of sorts.

It is a young adult book (the co-author was involved in that genre, which often involves books that adults will enjoy, too) involving a high school student who suffered two horrible deaths in the family.

The second one truly broke her, and she wants to make a difference in a particularly striking way. She takes a well-known song a bit too seriously, let's say. The book is largely done through her eyes, with limited exceptions.

I thought it was rather good. It is written with empathy without sanding off the harsh edges, providing a raw account of her emotions.

[dwb68]

Which will be the 51st state?
1. Cuba
2. Greenland
3. Puerto Rico
4. District of Columbia

I say it will be in order: 1 (Cuba),3 (PR),2 (Greenland) but never 4

[Brett Bellmore]

East California.

[Frank Drackman]

"Flora-Georgia-Bama" (only the Extreme Southern Slices of Alabama/Georgia and Florida Panhandle to the Atlantic)
It's more of a State of Mind, than a "State" but does have it's distinct Culture, The "Southern Man" Neil Young spoke of is really more of a "Florida Man"

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

It is a simple question because the Republican party is very unlikely to allow any expansion of the number of states. It simple to great a threat to the control they now have with control of several low population states.

[Sarcastr0]

Will Baude links to a moral philosophical memoriam of Tom Stoppard:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/playwright-tom-stoppard-jumpers

He also ranks his favorite Stoppards https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/things-to-read-this-week-152026

I saw Leopoldstadt, and a couple of college versions of RGaD. I'll need to do more.

[SRG2]

I am a big fan of Stoppard. I played Guildenstern at our boarding school production. I can't say I was particularly good, but the boy who played the Player King was excellent. I saw the first revival of Jumpers (with Michael Hordern still in it - one of the great English character actors) at the National.

I saw the first production of Arcadia, also at the National, with Bill Nighy, Felicity Kendal and the young Rufus Sewell, and then the second - elsewhere in London - with a better cast of Roger Allam, Joanne Pearce, and still Rufus Sewell. As I was watching it the first time, I thought to myself, "It's as if Tom Stoppard has written a play with the specific intention of appealing to me personally". It's my favourite play of his.

I've been to a few others, of course. I saw Night and Day with John Thaw and Diana Rigg , who we all thought had had a glass of something beforehand, to no bad effect.

I saw Leopoldstadt (helps to have friends who are critics and get freebies). I was frankly disappointed, It was just another Holocaust play - which sounds a terrible thing to say, but the reality is that there are plenty of plays on the subject, and this didn't particularly stand out, whereas only Stoppard could write a "Stoppard" play, and this wasn't one. Now the last couple of minutes were gut-wrenching but that is always doable given the subject, and being able to draw tears at one scene doesn't make a play great. Mine was not a popular opinion, though.

[loki13]

A gentle reminder to people like XY and Bob (I think, I've had him blocked for a while) about the end-goal of the administration and the people that you support.

These are the people that are trying to get you to support the thug and murderer by contributing to a GiveSendGo fundraiser because he killed Renee Good. What does it say at on the fundraising page?

"But this didn't happen in a vacuum—it's the direct result of anti-American traitors like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (who is Jewish)"

Don't forget... nationalism and nativism always (ALWAYS) ends up turning its hatred to the same target. If you think this time it will be different ... well, just look around you. You can lie to yourself if you want, but that doesn't change what we are all seeing.

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry if ICE Agents won't die in a grotesque military manner like you'd prefer.

[Estragon]

They promoted Paul Ingrassia.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some rando posts a fundraising page. Trump wants to kill all Jews!

This dude is just insufferable.

[SRG2]

Don't worry, Bob. The Max Naumann award for 2026 won't be awarded until December. Plenty of time for you to stand out from the competition.

[loki13]

By the way, there are now so many lawless things going on with the administration it's hard to keep track of it all. From the banal (that Halligan is still signing pleadings as the USA, leading courts to strike it and one judge, appointed by Trump, to issue an order to her requiring her to state why that was not a false and misleading statement to the Court) to the "eff it, we can do what we want." In that category is Noem's latest "eff you, Congress."

After the murder in Minnesota, Noem secretly entered an order requiring Congress to give seven days notice prior to visiting an ICE Facility. Now, this was problematic for numerous reasons- fist, there's a specific law that allows Congress to conduct oversight visits WITHOUT NOTICE (section 527). Second, ICE already tried this and there was a judicial order staying ICE's first order unless and until they showed that no congressional funds were being used for the facility (you know, show the Court).

So what did Noem do? They just issued a duplicate order. Without providing notice to the Court, Congress, or the Plaintiffs in the case in which the first order was stayed, and said that was in effect.

The administration is staffed with thugs, criminals, and liars who rely on the gullibility of people that will defend anything.

[loki13]

This is reply to Brett, above, that I am reposting as a new thread.

Brett- "In the end a mother was killed because she decided that she was entitled to obstruct the enforcement of a law she opposed, and was entitled to flee arrest even if it meant endangering somebody's life."

Let's unpack this claim, because ... as much as I am afraid of people disseminating AI fakes, it's now obvious that people will disbelieve their own eyes in order to convince themselves of other people's lies.

1. First, no one in the United States should be summarily executed. No one. And no one in the government should be publicly lying about the murder of an unarmed civilian and slandering them before there has even been an investigation. Can we agree on that? I hope so. At a minimum, no matter what, I would hope you start with, "That was a terrible tragedy," instead of your, "She was a terrorist. I have no problem with her being shot dead and a child left without a parent and being called a bitch after she was killed by ICE." Right?

2. Next, ICE is behaving lawlessly in general. You do understand that, don't you? Court after court has found ... well, I will quote a recent order from a court ... "[T]he avalanche of evidence before the Court – along withfederal officials’ statements – suggests that federal agents acted pursuant to a common and widespread practice of violating the First Amendment rights of journalists, legal observers, and protesters. . . . The record also suggests that Defendant Noem ratified Defendants’ practice of meeting First Amendment protected activities with force.”

For example, in Chicago, ICE seized and threatened legal observers who were merely following ICE vehicles in a lawful and careful manner and not impeding those vehicles. At one point, an ICE agent threatened an observer with federal charges based on
this protected First Amendment activity: “You know what you’re doing is illegal and you could be arrested for impeding law enforcement . . . following law enforcement, honking and harassing agents is impeding law enforcement.”

3. And you know what? In Minnesota, shortly before this shooting, the DOJ on behalf of ICE, responded to a lawsuit in Minnesota with claims about their unlawful activities that INCLUDED allegations that they were harassing and intimidating people who were "following" their vehicles or "blocking" their vehicles or "harassing" them by saying ... wait for it ... they would never arrest people for doing that sort of lawful thing, but they might approach a person and admonish them. Quite the admonishment, eh?

4. So ... maybe this wasn't really a lawful stop, but just an intimidation? After all, ICE isn't "general law enforcement." They can't arrest you because they feel like it. You know that, right? They can't enforce traffic laws, or terrorism laws. They cannot enforce state laws, and they cannot enforce most federal law (very limited). Don't even get me started on administrative warrants.

[loki13]

contd. from above.

5. Next, what about training? It's known that you shouldn't box in a car during a stop. Period. Because that leads to unjustified shootings. Yet we see, over and over, ICE employ this tactic ... often, to "enforce" laws they aren't allowed to enforce. Over and over, they box in cars, and we see the results.

6. Then, we have two agents approach Good's vehicle (after the "boxing in") and one tries to open the door. Again, why? They aren't allowed or supposed to arrest her, right? Unless (and this is key) she is actively interfering with an enforcement action that is currently occurring (nope) or failing to obey a LAWFUL order (for example, to move). At this point, ICE had not issued an order. She began moving the vehicle when the ICE agent tried to open the door. Notably, she first REVERSES (with the wheels turned to the left) to move away from the killer who, again, was standing in front of the vehicle to box her in.

7. After she reverses, Good turns the wheels to the right and begins to move forward in order to avoid the ICE agent in front of her. She is obviously not trying to hit or injure him. She is moving slowly, which allows him to easily get out of the way, and ... fire the first shot when he is already out of the way (but could at least plausibly claim, maybe, that he was terrified or something). That is the one that goes into the lower side of the windshield. At this point, the car is past him and...

8. When the car is past him, and he is in no danger, the ICE agent fires two more shots into the open front window of the car, killing Good. Immediately afterwards, several of the ICE agents (probably, but not definitively, including the shooter, Ross) flee the scene. Meanwhile, other agents prevent bystanders from the scene, including a physician who could have assisted the victim- Good did not die immediately. I don't think it mattered (EMS arrived in 6 minutes and it was a headshot) but it just goes to the whole issue- you have a shooting and a person who isn't dead, and you don't care at all about saving them? But then again, we heard the video. "Fucking bitch." Real professionals.

[Brett Bellmore]

5. See #4. They are allowed to enforce.
6. See #4. They are allowed to enforce.
7. She's not allowed to flee, and did so in a hazardous manner.
8. Elsewhere I already cited the famous court case about upraised knives, which established that once you have reason to shoot, subsequent shots soon enough after may be legal even if wrong given calm reflection.

[loki13]

No. They cannot enforce state law (which includes traffic law). This is well-known and there is even, like, court cases when they tried as well as a binding settlement. They can only stop a vehicle if there is a basis in immigration law to do so. Trump tried anyway, and it's already been slapped down by a court (although there is an appeal, but this is just about the settlement, not the underlying issue that ICE can't enforce state law, including traffic laws, as a pretext).

They cannot enforce general federal law. They can only enforce specific law (in this example, immigration law) and have some related ability ... tied to this. For example, they can give orders or detain citizens (temporarily) if they are obstructing or interfering with an immigration enforcement activity. But that is very specific and narrow. For example, they aren't supposed to have the power to arrest ANY citizens (unless it's for the narrow categories of obstruction or interference with immigration raid or assault of an officer). Despite this, ICE has arrested and held more than 170 citizens with no basis to do so. In addition, 130 more citizens and counting have been arrested for "interference" or "assault" but almost every single case was dismissed because ... they lie. There are almost no convictions. It's just intimidation.

What are they not allowed to do? They can't open your car door because they feel like it (which they were attempting here). They need a warrant. They cannot arrest people for recording them. They cannot arrest people (or detain them) for breaking traffic laws. If they are driving around. If they believe you are interfering with an actual immigration enforcement (not just "blocking them" from traveling because you are parked illegally), they can give you a lawful order to move and if you do not follow it, then you are in trouble.

Finally, ICE is NEVER allowed to use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject. Never. I think that's pretty self-explanatory.

(Bonus fun fact- under federal law, ICE agents are required... REQUIRED to identify themselves as soon as practicable. How's that working?)

So let's apply the facts to this case. What law were they enforcing? Be specific. Because unless they were actually in the middle of an enforcement action, you can't really say that she was interfering with enforcement. In addition ... she wasn't interfering. The videos show that multiple cars, INCLUDING one with ICE agents (such as the murderer) drove around her. How do you think she was boxed in? But she wasn't blocking the agents- they drove around her and she did not move to stop them.

Next, Ross was recording the encounter. If he was concerned about his safety (ha!) why did he have his cell in his hand? He didn't feel that threatened, and he obviously didn't think of her as a "domestic terrorist." Because she wasn't.

With that said, let's assume the counterfactual. That she was "interfering" with an enforcement action. Okay, then what. They can give her a lawful order. In this case, it would be to move the car if that was the basis for interference.... not GET OUT OF IT. But sure, in cases where officers "fear for their safety" they can order people out of a car. Was there any fear for safety? She had her hands on the wheels at all times.

Finally, she state that she not ALLOWED to flee. So what? They weren't allowed to stop her. She wasn't suspected of an immigration crime. And they were specifically prohibited from shooting at the car to stop her. And there was nothing hazardous about her leaving ... she was going really slow, and no one was injured.

But, of course, she was killed.

Oh, and let's replay that last one. What was the reason for the first shot again?

To recap-
1. She wasn't obstructing them.
2. They had no lawful basis to approach her car.
3. They had no lawful basis to order her out of her car.
4. They had no lawful basis to try and open her door.
5. They are prohibited from using deadly force to stop someone "fleeing" ... although, again, she was moving her car very very slowly and deliberately.

In summary- Noted libertarian Brett Bellmore supports jack-booted thug force from the federal government occupying our cities and towns and shooting people for not being sufficiently deferential to their unlawful thuggery.

[loki13]

contd. contd.

And to wrap this up!

9. This goes to the whole issue of the lawlessness of ICE in general, and of the administration. We have seen these types of things happen repeatedly- ICE harassing American citizens. ICE arresting American citizens and then either making up facts, or just releasing them knowing that they can act with impunity. ICE killing people with impunity. ICE committing violence, and then blaming protesters for it. There are such a constant stream of stories that don't even make the news anymore- ICE pulling out citizens from their cars and beating them up. ICE pulling guns on people. ICE threatening local PDs when they are arrested. ICE extorting people for sex and money. ICE using excessive force against people for ... videotaping them (which is allowed and protected). And on and on and on. That's before getting to detentions, which 309 judges (and counting) have found to be unlawful.

10. And then? Then the administration lies about it. Baldly and repeatedly, for people like you. Because you will believe it, and don't read the court cases (so many court cases) where the facts come out. Then their lawyers lie to the Court. And the officials lie as well ... or eventually acknowledge the truth. And repeatedly, we find that the stories they tell the public are never true. Not .... sometimes. Never. Heck, they will ARREST people they shoot after they've unlawfully stopped and shot them. Why? Because they can. And because people like you will believe them.

But in the end, if you are okay with a lawless federal police force that hires the worst of the worst (really) to thug around and shoot people, then there isn't much I can do to argue back. Personally, I find this to be appalling, and I can't quite grasp how someone is okay with a mother getting shot in the head .... and then slandered by the people in this administration before they even knew the facts. Or, for that matter, how we can let a bunch of thugs be above the law and stay silent ... because if we don't respect their authority (real or pretend) we might end up six feet under.

That's not the America I was raised to believe in.

[Brett Bellmore]

9, 10.

Yeah, I don't like it either. I've said over and over, Trump tends to pursue ends I approve of via means I find objectionable.

I think the extent to which immigration enforcement is worse than, say, drug law enforcement, is somewhat exaggerated by intent, and I think things would be much less ugly if the left hadn't embarked on a program of illegally obstructing immigration law enforcement, and I think Congress could, but hasn't, given Trump tools that would work better, but I still don't like what is going on.

But however we got there, she had a cop standing in front of her car, and floored it. And you're never going to get me to say that's OK, and my understanding of existing precedent is that the first shot was defensible, and the subsequent shots where close enough in time that they will be swept up with the first and analyzed as one action.

You don't want moms shot? Great, stop suggesting to them that obstructing law enforcement is a nice, safe, feel good activity.

[loki13]

"But however we got there, she had a cop standing in front of her car, and floored it. "

See above. First, ICE aren't cops. They just aren't. They are a federal agency with limited law enforcement powers. The fact that this administration ignores this limits and publicly signalled that thuggery and violation of the law is okay doesn't mean that we can turn a blind eye to it.

Second, the ICE agent should never have been standing in front of the car. She wasn't obstructing them (see above) and there is a reason that you don't see actual cops do this. If cops DO box someone in, they do it with vehicles and go bumper-to-bumper. The trained ones, at least.

Third, she did not "floor it." I don't even know how you can say that. She was going very slowly- FIRST IN REVERSE and then forward, specifically to allow the ICE agent sufficient time to move out of the way, which he did. He was not in fear for his life or safety, and he was not injured. It wasn't a case of "coming right at him," it was a case of slowly moving past him as he shot once into the bottom right of the windshield ... and then twice into an open window at her head.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, first, ICE ARE cops. Get that out of your head. They might be specialized cops, but they're cops. They are fully authorized to conduct arrests for any federal crimes they observe.

Codification of Certain U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Law Enforcement Authorities (Direct link to relevant paragraph)

So, just drop it, they're cops.

"Second, the ICE agent should never have been standing in front of the car."

Second, I DON'T CARE. That doesn't excuse her trying to run him over! So it's simply not relevant except to try to excuse what she did.

"Third, she did not "floor it.""

Did too. When she backed up gently, the rear wheels retained traction. When she applied the accelerator to go forward, they spun. This unambiguously indicates she applied more accelerator going forward than she had going back. A lot more.

[Sarcastr0]

I DON'T CARE

Hmmmm.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a short skirt argument. Maybe he shouldn't be in front of the car, but he's allowed to stand in front of the car, and his standing in front of the car doesn't justify her plowing into him, or even driving past him in a manner that puts him in danger.

To say otherwise is victim-blaming.

[Sarcastr0]

Hah what the fuck?

What a weird, strained analogy fail.

Go stand in traffic, I guess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Go stand in traffic, I guess."

Talk about a strained analogy. He wasn't standing in traffic. He was standing in front of a stationary vehicle. Which, according to you, makes it his fault that he got hit when the lady chose to flee from ICE.

[Josh R]

Being in front of the car was reckless. As loki described, screaming at her to get out of the car and trying to open the car door goes beyond reckless (*).

(*) It might be OK if she was asked to get out of the way because she was impeding an ICE operation and was informed she was under arrest when she did not leave. My money is on ICE acting like tough-guy cowboys.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Being in front of the car was reckless. As loki described, screaming at her to get out of the car and trying to open the car door goes beyond reckless (*)."

Sigh. You guys are just getting desperate. Cops yell instructions at people all the time. They often come off like jerks when they do, but unfortunately there's no law against a cop being a jerk.

[Josh R]

Firstly, a cop being a jerk is reckless.

Secondly, standing in front of the car after it backed up was reckless.

Thirdly as loki explained, there was likely no legal authority for the agent to demand her to get out of the car (but could have been as I noted above). That's beyond reckless. It's illegal, and exacerbated by the physical attempt to get her out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Firstly, a cop being a jerk is reckless."

Sigh. No, cop being a jerk is just a cop being a jerk.

"Secondly, standing in front of the car after it backed up was reckless."

He was already in front of the car when it backed up. But in any event, you guys keep saying he had no reason to believe she was a threat. Until she launched her car at him.

"there was likely no legal authority for the agent to demand her to get out of the car (but could have been as I noted above). That's beyond reckless. It's illegal, and exacerbated by the physical attempt to get her out."

I think they had arguable RS (which is the standard) to question her for obstruction, but in any event, it is irrelevant. She isn't allowed to resist even an unlawful arrest. (I disagree with that, but it's the law.)

[Josh R]

{Duplicate deleted}

[Josh R]

I have not said he had no reason to believe she was a threat. All I said is he should have gotten out of the way as soon as she backed up. And FFS already, she did not launch the car at him (which still does not imply the agent had no reason to believe she was a threat).

Was she being placed under arrest?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"All I said is he should have gotten out of the way as soon as she backed up."

In hindsight, that would have been a wise choice. But to suggest that failing to get out from in front of a vehicle that was backing away from him rises to the level of recklessness implies that he could have used deadly force even while she was backing up, which I don't think you mean to imply, and which I certainly don't agree with.

"Was she being placed under arrest?"

She was told to get out of the car, which means that she wasn't free to leave.

[Josh R]

He can't use deadly force while she is backing up because she is not yet a threat. He should move out of the way in case she moves forward and becomes a threat.

The command to get out can be ignored if she is not under arrest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If she's not a threat, there's no reason to get out from in front of the vehicle.

"The command to get out can be ignored if she is not under arrest."

You have it backwards. A person is arrested or detained when by display of force or show of authority the police indicate that a person is not free to leave.

[Josh R]

An order to get out of her car put her under arrest? No.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Arrest or detention. People often quibble over the distinction, and I don't think it matters in this case. But yes, a verbal indication that you're not free to leave is sufficient. Flashing emergency lights is also sufficient, as in a normal traffic stop.

And all they needed to detain her was arguable reasonable suspicion that she intended to engage in some sort of illegal obstruction or impedance, and given her behavior that standard was easily met.

[Josh R]

Yes, they can temporarily detain her prior to an arrest. No, absent an arrest they cannot force her out of the car based on suspicion of unlawful impedance without an arrest (this is not a traffic stop).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? It is a traffic stop, although one based on RS for obstruction, not for violating traffic laws.

[Josh R]

No, detainment for suspicion of impeding ICE operations is not a traffic stop just because the person being detained happens to be in a car.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the wiki article on traffic stops:

"A traffic stop, colloquially referred to as being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle and its occupants by police to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law."

That's what happened here.

[loki13]

Again, they cannot enforce traffic laws or state laws. Above, you quoted Minnesota law.

What federal law were they enforcing? Not a traffic law. What right did they have to approach the car and demand the occupant to get out?

Again, ICE aren't cops. No one refers to the FBI (who at least have a higher level of training in actual law enforcement) as "cops" because they're .... feds. They don't pull you over for speeding. They don't enforce state laws (although they will assist local law enforcement).

And finally she did not floor it. The fact that you don't care about brazen murder of US Citizens by thugs says a lot about you, mostly that you're so far from being a libertarian that the only thing you have in common with most libertarians is a lack of empathy.

To put it plainly- people who protest are not "open season" and America does not run on your theory that it's okay to break a lot of eggs to make your anti-immigrant omelet. ICE is pure thuggery, staffed by the kids in middle school who dreamed of the day when they could take out their frustrations on everyone else.

[SRG2]

The secretary may "require or authorize any DHS employee to exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred upon DHS under the immigration laws".

The entire section you linked to is in the context of enforcing immigration law. So yes, they're LEOs, But they are not truly cops because their powers are limited to that context.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,""

Just give it up.

[loki13]

Learn to read a statute. You omitted the next line that qualifies what you just quoted.

I assume incompetence, not malevolence, because I trying to be generous.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This part?

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.

I will also be generous and assume incompetence.

[Josh R]

That doesn't excuse her trying to run him over!

JFC. She did not try to run him over. If you believe otherwise, you are as impervious to facts as those who believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

[David Nieporent]

They are fully authorized to conduct arrests for any federal crimes they observe.

I mean, so are private citizens, so that doesn't really tell us anything meaningful.

[Life of Brian]

Private citizens can make arrests for federal crimes? Have a source of authority for that by chance?

[David Nieporent]

Did too. When she backed up gently, the rear wheels retained traction. When she applied the accelerator to go forward, they spun. This unambiguously indicates she applied more accelerator going forward than she had going back. A lot more.

It unambiguously indicates that you have a vivid imagination.

[Life of Brian]

Second, the ICE agent should never have been standing in front of the car. She wasn't obstructing them (see above) and there is a reason that you don't see actual cops do this.

"People who don't want to be run over shouldn't walk around the front of cars that are... um, backing up." Not even a particularly good short-skirting.

[Sarcastr0]

floored it

So you're just lying now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, he's not lying. Just so you're clear, remember when you said that Charlie Kirk said the quote about black women when you knew that he didn't say it? That was lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Just to be clear, I have no idea of you deep cut thing happened or not, but I do know a shitpost when I see it.

If you can't defend Brett's lies, then don't post. This is just embarrassing you both.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I have no idea of you deep cut thing happened or not, "

Lol, you clearly can't defend your own lies. Maybe take your own advice?

[David Nieporent]

There's a story on Reason's main site today:

Video Shows Border Patrol Threaten Legal Observer in Key Largo for Following Him

A U.S. Border Patrol officer threatened to arrest a legal observer in Key Largo, Florida, today for following the officer, video of the encounter posted on Instagram shows.

The video is another instance of federal immigration officers threatening and harassing legal observers for conduct that civil liberties groups and multiple federal circuit courts say is firmly protected First Amendment activity.

You will not be surprised to find the ICE Border Patrol guy lying and claiming that filming him from a distance is "impeding an investigation."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, they shouldn't do that. Cops of all stripes do that all the time, and even unlawfully arrest people for filming them with very little accountability. It would be nice to find a way to hold them accountable.

Unfortunately, many of the videos being posted of ICE behaving badly are just examples of garden variety lack of accountability for cops that is a systemic problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. First, no one in the United States should be summarily executed. No one."

Yeah, we can agree on that. I do not believe that's what happened here.

"2. Next, ICE is behaving lawlessly in general."

Too often? Sure. In general? No, I don't think so. But, too often? Absolutely, and for the same reason drug law enforcement is often abusive: They're enforcing a law that does not generate a lot of victims eager to inform the police what happened, and which has a not insignificant fraction of the population resisting enforcement.

This makes violator harder to detect, and effective enforcement requires keeping the product of (probability of being caught)x(consequences of being caught) high enough. In such cases if the police don't just throw up their hands, there's a tendency to supplement formal consequences with informal, and engage in procedural shortcuts, in order to make up the difference.

3. If they agree they're not going to arrest people for doing lawful things, this doesn't preclude arresting them for doing unlawful things. So it really comes down to whether Good was behaving lawfully.

4. 1994 U.S. Code
Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 11 - NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER II_2 - SUBCHAPTER II-IMMIGRATION
Part IX - Miscellaneous
Sec. 1357 - Powers of immigration officers and employees

"(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
...
(5) to make arrests—

(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Next, ICE is behaving lawlessly in general."

I have seen lots of video where it appears that ICE is detaining people (IMO) without even arguable reasonable suspicion (unfortunately arguable reasonable suspicion is the standard to get QI.) It would be nice to see some accountable for this, as well as clarification about the standard to detain people. But it is too hard to hold cops, and especially feds, accountable.

[Sarcastr0]

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/videos-show-number-of-aggressive-ice-operations-in-twin-cities-on-sunday

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol descended on the Speedway at Snelling and Portland avenues, where agents arrested a motorist allegedly for failing to present citizenship documentation, smashing the man's car window in the process
[Car was stopped. Window smashing was unneeded thuggery.]

Footage obtained by FOX 9 shows a Border Patrol agent tell a man who was observing to get back. The man appears to comply, telling the officer "yes, sir" and "don't touch me," then the agent pushes the man, chases him and tackles him to the ground.
[No crime in evidence]

An agent pointed a "less-lethal" weapon at a man in the store's vestibule as the group left, according to Fisher, who documented Bovino's activity in St. Paul over several hours.
[Brandishing is illegal, no?]

In videos shared to social media, the woman can be heard pleading with the agents and offering to show her ID, as agents pin her to the ground and place her under arrest.
[ICE does not care about people showing them ID.]

President JD Vance has said agents will be going door to door to check citizenship status.
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOUT THIS.

[The source's name did not inspire confidence. However they seem legit: "Overall, we rate Bring Me The News Least Biased based on minimal editorializing. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bring-me-the-news/%5D
=================
This is all illegal.
It's also needless.
ICE acting like the gangs they once claimed to be going after.
Stormtroopers is what springs to mind; political intimidation.
This has nothing to do with going after criminal aliens.

Anyone who supports ICE at this point should have to live with that badge of shame for the rest of their lives, that they are no friends of America or liberty.

[Swede425]

Where do I sign up for my badge, dumbass?
You retards don't get to run over people you don't like.
Like most children, you don't like being told no.
Too bad.
Two like-minded retards played a stupid game and won the prize that goes with it.
Stop trying to run over people, maybe live to see another day.
Try it.

[Swede425]

That was in response to the retard above you.
You're hard to tell apart.

[Malika la Maize]

Isn’t there a name on the internet for when someone does something stupid (like responding to the wrong person) while calling others stupid?

[Bob from Ohio]

Malika la Maize?

[Frank Drackman]

That's already been reserved for a specific Bodily Function, and if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a Malika la Maize.

Frank

[John 4]

You have to be an adult for that. Sorry, little guy.

[loki13]

I recommend reading this document-

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.1.0_1.pdf

Reminder- it is a Complaint (so these are allegations, not facts, at this point). And it was filed December 17, 2025, so it is not up-to-date. But the litany of abuses recounted in Minnesota up to that point in time is appalling. It explains why people, immigrant or citizen, are protesting and afraid, and how ICE is engaged in petty thuggery and intimidation.

Also? It gives lie to the repeated comments by Brett that ICE is just acting lawfully and going about their business. They aren't. They are violating laws repeatedly knowing that they can act with impunity and will not be held to account- whether it's violating traffic laws or using the same license plate on multiple cars or showing up at people's homes to harass them to pepper spraying random people to violence to ... murder.

If you lower your standards, hire the worst of the worst, and make them unaccountable ... this is what you get.

[David Nieporent]

[ICE does not care about people showing them ID.]

Reason has pointed out that ICE takes the position that even Real ID doesn't prove citizenship.

[Life of Brian]

Reason has pointed out that ICE takes the position that even Real ID doesn't prove citizenship.

Well gee there, Sparky -- I wonder why ICE would "take that position."

Here's a nice colorful immigration support site that helpfully explains there are... 3 -- count 'em -- 3 states where the old meanies WON'T issue Real IDs to noncitizens.

Your turn.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Between an executive order wresting more control over the Fed’s oversight of Wall Street to Mr. Trump’s attempt to oust a sitting member of the policy-setting board of governors, the Fed had stuck to a time-tested strategy: Avoid provoking the president. At times, that meant bending to meet his demands in areas like climate change and bank regulation. But Mr. Powell, the Fed chair, drew the line when it came to protecting the central bank’s autonomy to set interest rates. [NYT]

Was Powell fed up?

[ducksalad]

He seemed reserved to me. Almost board.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Needs some more personality. Stiff as a board at times.

[ReaderY]

Where have you been? Trump has launched a criminal investigation against Powell, claiming unspecified crimes were committed in renovating the Federal Reserve headquarters. His personal captive law firm, D/B/A “The Justice Department,” sent out a bunch of subpoenas. He also announced he will try to get him fired for gross incompetence.

[bernard11]

I wouldn't be surprised if he was, but I think his line-drawing was appropriate.

Let's make clear what Trump is trying to do. The media are going to follow their usual both-siderism policy when reporting. It's good that Powell took a public, firm, stance.

Trump is a madman.

[Bob from Ohio]

So who wrote more words here today, Loki or not guilty?

Get an editor! both of you.

[Frank Drackman]

Reviewing some of the photos of the (Late) Minneapolis Karen......
She does have some of the Stigmata (HT J. Christ) of Down's Syndrome, the Epicanthic Folds, Flat Nasal Bridge, Low Set Ears, Short Neck.
If she was bagging my Groceries at Publix I'd give her a "Jackson" and still take the Cart out myself (Because that's the kind of guy I am, any of you "Woke" Fucks tip a Mongoloid at Publix anything??)

Frank

[ReaderY]

An image showing the vehicle heading directly for the officer is a fake, AI-generated image.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/renee-good-car-ice-image/

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh. It's obviously AI generated: There wasn't a camera in that position! Doesn't mean the car wasn't headed straight towards him.

[loki13]

Except .... it wasn't.

All together now. First, the car reversed (wheel turned to the right) and then the car started moving slowly forward to the right in order for the ICE Agent / Thug to get out of the way and the car to go by.

And also? That agent was in the SUV that went PAST Good's car ... which shows she wasn't obstructing them. I posted the complaint which has a litany of instances of ICE agents doing exactly this sort of this- stopping and harassing US Citizens with no right to do so. Just before Good was shot, the DOJ filed a document saying that this never happens, and that ICE Agents sometimes just amicably approach vehicles to admonish drivers, and has never made an arrest.

Because of course. Why arrest when you can't, and also you can just shoot them? Heck, when they crash into someone's car (as they just did) the agents will flee the scene, but not before pepper spraying anyone around.

I guess that's better than Chicago, where they crashed into someone's car who had nothing to do with them, shot her, and then lied about what happened, charged her with crimes, and moved their own vehicle out of state in order to muck with the evidence .... only to dismiss the false charges because, um, courts actually require facts, not lies.

[Moderation4ever]

In a situation like this the best thing would be a very independent investigation but that is unlikely to happen. The Trump administration has shown that they have already made up their minds. I understand the reluctance to allow MN to conduct the investigation. Best that could happen is an independent appointment.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Doesn't mean the car wasn't headed straight towards him.."

No. The video evidence/facts disprove that. The car was never "headed straight towards him" because he was right on the driver-side front bumper and the car's wheels were hard over. But Ross definitely had to jump out the way and did - getting completely clear of the auto with no part of his body close to touching when he took his the first murder attempt shot.

Now I understand his anger. I've had the exact same thing happen to me at least twice over the years, with clumsy or distracted drivers forcing me to leap out of the way as a car brushed by. Like Ross, both times I shouted out choice expletives. Like Ross, I was furious. Yet I couldn't convince myself in either case that my "life was in danger", particularly after I stood clear of the car's path. Of course that's when Ross started trying to murder Good.

And I don't recall thinking I had drawn a "COMMIT A MURDER FREE!" card from the Chance or Community Chest piles due to being so irksomely put out. It simply never occurred to me I had the "right" to kill somebody despite facing zero danger myself. Maybe it's part of ICE training to learn what threadbare excuses suffice to "excuse" pointless rage-motivated murder.

So Ross is at least 24in clear of the car in all his bodily person when he first tried to kill Renee Good. But her auto is pulling away and veering right, so his shot falls in the very corner of the front windshield. To execute her, he'll have to do better - so two shots follow, gangland-style, thru the driver's open window as the car passes by. Point-blank head shots. The guy just couldn't let his "COMMIT A MURDER FREE!" card go to waste.

[hobie]

I notice Ross purposely leaned in over the hood to get a better shot. Because, I mean, fuck that bitch.

[hobie]

Brett shouting while standing on Calvary: "You should have just obeyed the law!!!"

[John 4]

Brett was almost open to “this was a bad shoot” until he saw the smirking face of a woman, at which he immediately joined the “domestic terrorist” chorus. Absolute clown shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was open to it being a bad shoot until I saw the officer's video which confirmed that he was in front of her car when she put it into drive, that she saw that he was there, that she wasn't panicking in the least, and that she hit him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, can you tell me something about the hardware you are using to see this stuff? My monitor purpose-built and continuously calibrated for high end graphics arts applications does not show what you are seeing. It does give me fleeting glimpses of the expression on the shooter's face.

Also, as a thought experiment, put yourself in the shooter's place, but not in his frame of mind. Instead, you are holding the hand of a four-year-old child. What is the first thing you do when you see the car go into reverse? Stand your ground, draw your gun, and shoot through the windshield?

Can you at least see why that would be a bad shoot? Even with a child in tow, you would have had plenty of time to get out of the way, and even to get to a location safe against a deliberate attempt to aim the car to attack you. Which of course did not happen. The victim lived long enough to prove she intended no attack.

[SRG2]

Do you know that the agent didn't stand deliberately in front of the car so he could then justify shooting Good?

[Frank Drackman]

Who the fuck do you think you are? We're not here to answer your questions.
OK, I sort of asked one in my opening sentence, but it's rhetorical, they don't count.

Frank

[SRG2]

Fuck off, Frank. You're just the Jewish DDHarriman.

[hobie]

Just as you hayseeds are struggling to find ways to justify the imperialism you've railed against for years, Rudyard Kipling viewed imperialism as basically a humanitarian exercise

The White Man's Burden

Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden—
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Ol' Kipling was MAGA before there was MAGA wouldn't you say? Stop the terror. Take the profits. And what are these half animal/half child brownies gonna do about it?

[DDHarriman]

There are certain things that just hold true over the course of human history. A revolutionary comrade such as yourself should understand this, but whatevs.

*shrugs* I am empiricist and I go where the data takes me. hbu? do you just follow your heart of hearty hearts?

[hobie]

I saw a lot of bullying in grade school and it pissed me off. So wherever I see the powerful or arrogant victimizing the weak, I choose the weak. That leads me to support people I don't normally give a shit about: Palestinians, American Jews, Ukrainians, neegroes, pregnant women, trannies etc.

[Frank Drackman]

Feel sorry for all the Palestinian-American Jew-You-Cranian Knee-grow knocked up Tranny's out there, having to deal with you on top of everything else.

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Look just beneath the surface in Kipling and you see critique of the English class system. Or at least that's what I see. I get that lots of folks like to kick Kipling around as a racist.

[SRG2]

I can forgive much of a man who wrote these:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57409/epitaphs-of-the-war

He was crushed by the death of his son in WWI and was never the same - so I won't condemn his late racism and anti-Semitism.

[bernard11]

How do you feel about Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, G.K. Chesterton, etc.?

[SRG2]

IMO none of them wrote anything to compare with those brief poems.

I didn't grow up with Pound, but I was familiar with TS Eliot and GK Chesterton from an early age. I liked their works, certainly - but as people? Feh. I am unaware that they did anything in their literature or elsewhere that redeems or mitigates their anti-Semitism.

[David Nieporent]

so I won't condemn his late racism and anti-Semitism.

I don't think there's much profit poring through the past to find literary figures to condemn as antisemitic, regardless of whether they have an excuse. (I feel differently about political figures, to be clear.) What difference does it make if Kipling, or Dahl, or Dickens, or whomever were antisemites? If one chooses to avoid certain works of theirs because of the antisemitism contained therein, okay (although unless the antisemitism is the point of the work, I personally wouldn't do so), but I don't find it serves any purpose to say, "This guy held some offensive views, so I can't enjoy his otherwise-good works."
​
​
(To be sure, I understand the thought, "This guy is an antisemite; I don't want to give him my money." But that doesn't apply to people who died before I was born.)

[SRG2]

If one chooses to avoid certain works of theirs because of the antisemitism contained therein, okay (although unless the antisemitism is the point of the work, I personally wouldn't do so), but I don't find it serves any purpose to say, "This guy held some offensive views, so I can't enjoy his otherwise-good works."
​

Agreed. In no case of the writers mentioned was anti-Semitism the point. Often enough it was merely incidental, though unpleasant.

FWIW at my Jewish boarding school we studied Merchant of Venice - with some decent contextualising. The Jew of Malta is much more problematic - and can, or rather, should, probably be produced now only as a black comedy.

[bernard11]

The Jew of Malta is pretty blatant.

While The Merchant of Venice offers an unflattering, at least, portrayal of Shylock, Shakespeare being the playwright he was, makes the man human, gives him some depth and normal human traits, rather than making him a cartoon.

I find Antonio, the titular merchant, to be an interesting character. On the one hand he appears to be a generous fellow, offering to back Bassanio's loan for free and, as Shylock complains,

"He lends out money gratis and brings down The rate of usance here with us in Venice."

Does this mean that Shakespeare regarded antisemitism as simply a normal part of society?

[bernard11]

I don't think we should avoid worthwhile works because the author was an antisemite.

Neither does writing a good novel absolve the author.

[M L]

Bill Ackman doesn't know how to spell "principle."

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/2010506467452076132

Remember, intelligence or raw cognitive ability doesn't get you anywhere by itself. And tends to be kinda overrated in general.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In reversal, NY federal judge orders hearing on legality of backpack search in Luigi Mangione case

I have an image in my mind of a sneering defense attorney in an episode of Law & Order.

December 2024. Ah. The Before Times.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69908890/united-states-v-mangione/

[John F. Carr]

Senator Kelly sued Pete Hegseth et al. The lawsuit is a press release, vastly longer than it needs to be. The essence is Kelly said some things which he thinks are true and received a Secretarial Letter of Censure which he didn't deserve.

The complaint invokes the Administrative Procedure Act.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131361/kelly-v-hegseth/

One of the counts is "violation of the separation of powers." The courts could say, allowing officers to serve in Congress is a violation of separation of powers that is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. This is the issue ducked by the Supreme Court in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War. Declare Kelly ineligible to be a Senator and that count is swiftly resolved. The counts related to private citizen Kelly's speech would remain.

[loki13]

"One of the counts is "violation of the separation of powers." The courts could say, allowing officers to serve in Congress is a violation of separation of powers that is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. This is the issue ducked by the Supreme Court in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War. Declare Kelly ineligible to be a Senator and that count is swiftly resolved. The counts related to private citizen Kelly's speech would remain."

Well ... that's kinda the issue, isn't it? He's not in active service. He retired from the military. That's one of the many bizarre aspects of this. While there is some continuing military jurisdiction over retired service members, this .... this has never been done or contemplated.

Why? It's tied to the retirement provisions of the DoD, which explicitly allow the retirement rank to be determined if the retiree served "satisfactorily" in the highest grade they achieved before retirement.

Now, there have been a VERY few cases of retirement pay that was reduced after retirement. But all of them have one thing in common- it occurred because of investigations that revealed misconduct that occurred while the person was serving in that grade.

This ... is pure intimidation. It's purely about conduct that occurs after retirement. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

That said, I hope that this insanity falls away, because I don't think that a per se rule barring all people who served from Congress would be a good idea simply because Trump like to weaponize the government against people who annoy him.

[Zarniwoop]

I haven't taken a head count, but does the GOP really want a ruling that says a retired officer can't be in Congress?

How many currently-sitting GOP Reps and Senatuhs would also be impacted?

[loki13]

Also, under current law the speech & debate argument is a loser (IMO and based on my understanding).

[not guilty]

"The courts could say, allowing officers to serve in Congress is a violation of separation of powers that is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. This is the issue ducked by the Supreme Court in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War. Declare Kelly ineligible to be a Senator and that count is swiftly resolved. The counts related to private citizen Kelly's speech would remain."

I don't think the courts can say that, at least as to a sitting member of Congress, without running afoul of Article I, § 5 of the Constitution, which provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members".

[loki13]

Just reported- apparently, Trump just fired the #2 attorney (McBride) for EDVA for refusing to continue going after Comey.

McBride was brought in specifically to assist Halligan (she needs it so badly) and had previously participated in the Comey matter. Apparently, he was told to run the Comey litigation. He pushed back and tried to say that it shouldn't be pursued, no one can pursue this litigation and have any credibility in the EDVA, and it was a loser.

So he's gone. Last competent attorney in the DOJ, don't forget to turn off the lights!

[David Nieporent]

The NYT version of the story provides an alternative take\: the guy wasn't even refusing to prosecute Comey; he just said that he couldn't do that and his current job:

Mr. McBride said he could not do that while also running the prosecutor’s office as the first assistant U.S. attorney — he could do one or the other, these people said.

The Times says that the DOJ is spinning it differently:

One person familiar with the events disputed that explanation, stating that Mr. McBride had been dismissed because he had secretly met with judges in the district to try to persuade them to appoint him as U.S. attorney. Mr. McBride, that person added, had resisted pursuing immigration-related investigations related to local jurisdictions’ sanctuary policies and drug enforcement. The person also said Justice Department leaders supported the decision to fire Mr. McBride.

But the explanation seems implausible, because McBride had been brought in specifically by Trump; if he wasn't willing to pursue immigration-related stuff, he probably wouldn't have taken a job in the administration at all.

[grb]

To be upfront from the start, I'm not a hundred-percent sure this press release is legit. Nonetheless, it makes a strangely compelling case:

"Greenland announced it will annex the United States, citing humanitarian concerns, chronic leadership instability, and an urgent need to protect valuable land from reckless mismanagement. Officials assured Americans they'll soon enjoy free healthcare, quieter politics, and less gold plating."

[John F. Carr]

When they knock down the gold-plated state capitols, will they let the politicians out first?

[Bwaaah]

That's "traditional gold" you're talking about there, not "Trumpy gold."

Try to keep up with the Stylistas. (It's a mix of taste and venom.)

[grb]

(hope it's not behind a paywall)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/23/us/trump-white-house-oval-office-gold-decor.html

[grb]

Bwaaah : "..... Stylistas ....."

Speaking of "stylistas" and the total lack of taste or common sense, we have this:

"National Capital Planning Commission chairman Will Scharf has suggested the planned stadium by architecture studio HKS for the NFL team Washington Commanders should have a "classical" design."

"I think really going back to classical antiquity, arenas and stadiums have played a vital role in the urban cityscape," Scharf reportedly said."

https://www.dezeen.com/2026/01/07/washington-commanders-stadium-classical-nfl-trump/

To picture the monstrosity envisioned here, try bringing one of the newer stadiums to mind, such as SoFi Stadium in California (home to the Rams and Chargers). Then imagine it wrapped in a cheesy faux-classical style, like some plastic Colosseum bloated five or six times larger than the original model. But the Right is so into brainless brat-child theatrics there's nothing it won't demean, debase, or degrade. As long as someone (somewhere) sees "owning the libs" in it, these clowns are in everybody's business screwing everything up royally.

[SRG2]

I'm sure Albert Speer left some designs lying around that could be repurposed.

[M L]

Has Trump outpaced Obama yet on deportations?

Relatedly, looks like Democrat violent rhetoric is through the roof...

[Sarcastr0]

violent rhetoric

Haha this sucks.

[grb]

M L : "Has Trump outpaced Obama yet on deportations?"

Shouldn't you be asking how Obama did it without eighty percent of federal law enforcement dollars going to immigration enforcement? Or why he didn't need to preempt one in five US marshals, one in five FBI agents, half of DEA agents, over two-thirds of the ATF, and nearly 90 percent of Homeland Security Investigations? Or increase the ICE budget by 400%. Or shred the Constitution's most basic protections. Or fill the streets with masked lawless goons told to bust heads for show and effect.

Shouldn't you wonder, ML, why Trump is so less competent than Obama on this - Trump's most central issue? But the answer is obvious. Pointless thuggery and banana-republic-grade abuses are just part of the cartoon show put on for MAGA's entertainment. Like the farce that was DOGE, everything is done with grotesque incompetence because it's only a stunt in the end.

[SRG2]

In fairness to Trump, there were more self-deportations under him than under Obama, but your general point about his expensive incompetence is well made.

[Frank Drackman]

Putting kids in Cages was pretty good for deterring at least the Ill-legal Immigrants with Kids, in case you've got a case of Sleepy Joe's Disease, that was Barry Hussein Osama who did that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Shouldn't you be asking how Obama did it without eighty percent of federal law enforcement dollars going to immigration enforcement?"

No mystery: He just redefined 'deportations' to include people turned back at the border.

[jb]

By "redefined" you mean "kept using the same definition as the previous President". Which is a weird redefinition of "redefined".

[Bunny495]

It is a little more complicated than you claim. Before Obama those detained at the border were often sent back with no legal proceedings and did not count as deported. The Obama administration instituted legal proceeding for all padding his numbers compared to the way it was done before him. The definition did not change. The way detainees were processed did change and did inflate Obama's numbers.

[David Nieporent]

That is completely false. In fact, Obama was criticized by immigrant advocates for his extensive use of expedited removal, which is the exact opposite of "legal proceeding for all."

[Frank Drackman]

Watching the "New Video" of Lesbo Karen and her Tony Soprano Jr Boy-Toy several minutes before ICE gave her a new Asshole on her Forehead,
Cheese-Us, she deserved to get shot just for that incessant Horn Blowing, did she ever think maybe some peoples work at Night and Sleep during the Day, you know, Doctors, Nurses, Uber Drivers, Cops, Firefighters, Air Traffic Controllers, Truck Drivers, I'm trying to think of one Occupation where nobody works at night????
Oh yeah, Teachers, NEVER MIND!!!!!!
Seriously, I can count on one hand the number of times I've honked my horn in the last year, and I'm someone that's usually armed.

Frank

[Josh R]

Her honking was to warn people that ICE was present. It's protected speech (but subject to time, manner, place regulations not aimed at suppressing the message).

With that "Asshole on her Forehead" comment, you too might make a good jack-booted thug.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't do a good job of protecting her, did it?.
And the "Asshole on the Forehead" has been around probably as long as there've been Assholes, Foreheads, and implements to make an Asshole on a Forehead, but I first heard it from the Great Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway in "Heartbreak Ridge" (1986 Warner Bros)
When waking his new Platoon up at 5am instead of the 6am he had said,
"So I can't tell time.
Maybe some commie bastard's coming to
pop you a new Asshole in the forehead.
Move out! You're Marines now.
You improvise. You adapt. You overcome.
Four minutes. Fall out.
We move swift. We move silent.
We move deadly.
Only one shake of the whangs.
Any more than that constitutes pleasure,
and we're not in that business."

Frank

[Josh R]

Your use of the phrase, and all your comments on the incident, indicate you think she got what she deserved.

[SRG2]

This is amusing:

Scottish independence accounts go dark after Iran internet blackout

Pro-Scottish independence accounts on X have gone dark after an internet shutdown in Iran, exposing suspected links between the regime in Tehran and online influencers attempting to interfere with UK politics.

Multiple accounts on the social network went silent after authorities in Tehran imposed a blackout on the country’s internet in an attempt to quell anti-government protests.

Accounts claiming to be “Scottish Lad” Jake or “Proud Scottish lass” Fiona abruptly stopped posting on Jan 8 after the shutdown took hold.

As this is unlikely to have been restricted to Scotland...any regular posters here not been seen today?

[hobie]

HaHa! That's hilarious. You mean the Iranians have been leading around nationalist hayseeds like a bunch of cobras in a basket?! So all this time has it been MichaelP talking or some mullah that programmed him?

[Sarcastr0]

"Do you think the ICE agent should face criminal charges for shooting the woman in Minneapolis?"

All:
Yes: 53%
No: 30%

Yes Among:
Democrats: 90%
Independents: 54%
Republicans: 14%

YouGov / Jan 11, 2026
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2010858905350386083

[Josh R]

Sounds like that poll had a heavy Democratic weight.

My guess is the incident and ICE operations don't move the electoral needle unless Americans being killed by ICE becomes a common thing. Barring that, it's not like inflation which can pierce partisan loyalty.

[Sarcastr0]

Those https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/ICE_Policies_and_Practices_poll_results.pdf

"2024 presidential vote, at time of weighting was estimated to be 48% Harris and 50% Trump."

I agree that implies some pretty wild crosstabs.

[ducksalad]

Why? Roughly speaking, half at 90% and half at 14% = 52%.

[Sarcastr0]

Oy, I'm bad at stats.

[Josh R]

On second look, they weighted it reasonably.

Of interest is the 23% of Republicans who are not sure. If this happens again, then maybe this will move the electoral needle.

[Bunny495]

Objection, assuming facts not in evidence. Duck must be using the "new math". First assumption is the same number of pubs and dems were polled and next assumption is there are the same number of pubs and dems in the voting public. Not to mention how those polled were chosen. Mark Twain was right; liars, damn liars, and statisticians.

[hobie]

It's like I told Brett above. You ghouls keep dancing on this lady's grave until the midterms...please!!!

[John F. Carr]

Another press release styled as a complaint. Minnesota and Minneapolis sued DHS. Among the claims, agents are wearing masks in violation of an anti-masking ordinance. The complaint seeks the same kind of micromanagement of federal activities that was blocked by the Seventh Circuit last year. Minnesota is not in the Seventh Circuit.

Other counts: Border Patrol is operating more than 100 miles from the border using power that is limited to within 100 miles from the border. The recission of Biden's "sensitive locations" policy is racist. The Trump administration is unconstitutionally targeting Democrats. The Trump administration is unconstitutionally targeting liberals. The Trump administration is acting ultra vires.

https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/docs/00190_DHS_Complaint.pdf

[John F. Carr]

Finally, today's longest press release. Illinois and Chicago sued over immigration enforcement. The case is coordinated with Minnesota and contains some of the same claims, but at first glance appears more restrained despite its greater page count. It is a separate action in the Northern District of Illinois and relief will be constrained by recent Seventh Circuit decisions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/illinois-chicago-lawsuit-trump-homeland-security-immigration-raids/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the matter. The aircraft also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under its wings, they said.

The nonmilitary appearance is significant, according to legal specialists, because the administration has argued its lethal boat attacks are lawful — not murders — because President Trump “determined” the United States is an armed conflict with drug cartels.

But the laws of armed conflict forbid combatants from feigning civilian status to fool adversaries into dropping their guard, then attacking and killing them. That is a war crime called “perfidy.”

The "perfidy" (non-legal) of this Administration comes at you from various directions. https://archive.ph/ZngPL

[bernard11]

A simple question:

If we are able to stop and seize tankers at sea, why are we unable to stop fishing boats without murdering the crew?

[Voize of Reazon]

Time for a Word of the Day, used in a sentence:

"Boy, that Trump sure is a snollygoster, isn't he?"

[TwelveInchPianist]

The ACLU can't define man and woman for Alito today. He rightly asks how courts are supposed to enforce constitutional bans on sex discrimination if we don't know what sex is.