Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times has published a guest essay from two professors at Northwestern University headlined, "Americans Are Turning Against Gay People." https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/opinion/heated-rivalry-gay-prejudice.html

A Substack version of the same content, which I hope is not behind a paywall, appears here: https://grissom.substack.com/p/americans-are-turning-against-gay

The essay observes that:

In the two decades before 2020, visibility, recognition and legal inclusion of gays and lesbians progressed in lock step — larger and more prominent Pride parades, rainbow-lit landmarks, federal legalization of same-sex marriage. That progress translated into something remarkable: Americans’ bias against gay people declined faster than any other bias ever tracked in social surveys.

Research led by Professor Charlesworth and published in 2022 detailed this decline. Drawing on 7.1 million responses from Americans collected from 2007 to 2020, the researchers tracked both explicit bias (how people answer questions like “To what extent do you prefer straight people over gay people?”) and implicit bias (more automatic responses inferred from how rapidly people associate words, such as “straight” with “good” and “gay” with “bad”). Across every U.S. state and demographic group, anti-gay bias plummeted — by roughly 75 percent on explicit measures and 65 percent on implicit ones, on average. Forecasting models suggested that, at that pace, anti-gay bias could hit zero as early as 2022.

That encouraging news, however, was later offset:

[More recently T]he Charlesworth research team was analyzing new data showing that anti-gay bias had begun to rise. The analysis of an additional 2.5 million responses from Americans collected from the beginning of 2021 through 2024 revealed that progress had not only stalled; it had reversed. In just four years, anti-gay bias rose by around 10 percent.

Increases also appeared in bias toward Black, darker-skinned, older, disabled and overweight people, but not as starkly. Just as bias against gay people fell especially steeply before 2020, it has surged particularly sharply since.

Perhaps most surprising is that these trends were distinctly robust among the youngest American adults — those under 25. This group increased its animus against marginalized groups in general and gay people in particular at a faster rate than older Americans did. Also surprising is that although anti-gay bias has risen faster among conservatives, it has also risen among liberals.

A chill wind blows. Bigotry has become more fashionable.

I have a question for those commenters who regard yourself as a pious Christian or Jew -- in whose image do you believe gay and lesbian persons are created?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In answer to your last question, in whose image do you think Adolf Hitler was created?

When it was tolerance lead people alone, whatever they help they do in their privacy of their own homes as their own business I was all for that. But what it became in your face, sexuality with sexuality is not appropriate, and I mean, sexuality of any sexuality and now harassing children, I say too far.

It’s like the French revolution. They started with some legitimate issues and then went off the deep end.

But that’s my initial question. If you’re just legitimate, then answer in whose image Joseph Stalin was created. Or PolPot. or Robert Mugabe.

Do you now understand your logical fallacy?

[bloocow2]

In what way do you think gay people are "harassing children"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Drag queen story hour.

[David Nieporent]

Drag queen story hour.

Which involves neither gay people nor harassment… but it does involve children. 1 out of 3 is good in baseball, but not in facts.

[Michael P]

From Wikipedia: "Historically, drag queens have usually been gay men and have been a part of gay culture."

Why are you such a scummy denialist?

[RedheadedPharoh]

That's in his job description.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in the name.

Drag: A man dressing like a woman.
Queen: A gay man.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

When Rudy dresses in drag, to the delight of the Donald, what do you call him? What do you call a straight man in drag?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That was Rudy? Uh, I... never saw the picture.

[not guilty]

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Rudy+Giuliani+in+drag+pphoto&cvid=305312d019f942418f7c8f1e81dbd22e&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxNTUwN2owajmoAgiwAgE&PC=HCTS&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dRudy%2bGiuliani%2bin%2bdrag%2bpphoto%26cvid%3d305312d019f942418f7c8f1e81dbd22e%26gs_lcrp%3dEgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxNTUwN2owajmoAgiwAgE%26FORM%3dANAB01%26PC%3dHCTS&mmscn=vwrc&mid=9345202DB2C16465DE279345202DB2C16465DE27&FORM=WRVORC&ntb=1&msockid=ce9fc9d5f73911f0b5a88bf5464f90a2

Feast your eyes, TwelveInchPinhead.

[bloocow2]

Usually, but not always. The drag queen we enlisted for our public library storytime a couple of years ago (during Pride Month) was a heterosexual man who just liked to wear dresses. And he read a story that didn't even have anything to do with queerness!

The kids loved it, by the way. Which was a happy coincidence, because we forced them to come. It's all part of the recruitment program, you see.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Your kind is so gross and always targets children. You even have cultural phrases, like Chickenhawk and egg-cracking it is so prevalent in your culture.

Sick.

[bloocow2]

Thank you for your contribution! It's been a while since I've interacted with a real, honest-to-goodness homophobe. A good number of your kind have switched your arguments to "it's the trans-es that are corrupting our children!", once they realised that most people aren't panicking about The Gays anymore. But you've stayed the course - good for you!

Here's some homework for you: try, at some point in the near future, to actually talk with a real life gay person. I think you'll find that they're a lot more normal and boring than you'd assume, and don't give a single shit about converting your kids.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Lol I have high social status and don't hang around bookstores or bathhouses.

P.s. what does 'chickenhawking' mean?

[Frank Drackman]

How do you tell if someone is a "Real Life Gay Person"??
OK, well I know that way, but I'd prefer not to participate.
In fact if there's one thing you should never do, is turn away from a Gay Person, you want to always be facing them.

Frank "Watch your Six!"

[not guilty]

"Chickenhawk" has multiple pejorative meanings. When I use it, I am referring to a political figure who is a proponent of a war despite having avoided military service himself, such as Donald Trump or Dick Cheney. A kind of hypocrite. Really, a chickenhawk is one who says: "it's okay for other mother's sons and children's fathers to go off and get shot, dismembered and incinerated, but me, I'm too much of a wilting daisy to go off and break a nail trying to load one of those gun thingies."

It can also refer to an older male who seeks the company or favors of a younger male.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chickenhawk

[RedheadedPharoh]

And by " younger" you mean underage rape.

Its part of their culture.

[bloocow2]

Frank, with that kind of material you would have been a great hacky standup comedian in the 90s. You really missed your calling.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm thinking more Catskills 1960's Rodney Dangerfield, Henny Youngman with a little Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

Frank "I just did a one nighter in Schenectady, and she was lovely.....but things are going well, I just signed an exclusive 6 year Contract with General Motors......
I bought a car! (Rim Shot)
(Points at obviously Homosexual Couple) and I'd like to thank Pete and Chaz Booty-Judge for being here, so I have to ask, Pete, who's the "Top"????
(points to Elderly man with much younger woman) and Supreme Court Justice Douglas, loved your opinion in "Loving", and you Doll, want to make $50 the hard way????

[Mr. Bumble]

...and another rimshot!

[SRG2]

I think you'll find the rate of sexual offences against children by drag queens is significantly lower than by clergy, HS coaches, and local Republican politicians

[Bwaaah]

Look how proudly comfortable you are with your targets and your invective. My kid went to college in 2020. He was incessantly lectured by people with voices like yours and NG's and the NYTimes, about who the good people are and who they aren't. The kids all learned to STFU when people like you were in the room, and then to let loose when you weren't.

Your self-ascribed sensitivity to people is more viscous than sludge.

[Sarcastr0]

Disaffected liberal sure is touchy, and reading a whole lot into a comment that isn't there.

The kids all learned to STFU when people like you were in the room, and then to let loose when you weren't.
Bwaah's kid tells him everything, and it all aligns with Bwaah's priors.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. And denialist idiots like you pretend I live in a bubble, and all that shit didn't actually happen across college campuses. And you still pine for your racial judgement days.

Ducksalad still knows to STFU at work. But I'm over-sensitive? Nope. Just sensitive enough to see your rich humanitarianism.

You spit on other people's flags. But you don't dare raise yours to see who would salute. It's ugly, and you know that. So you spit on mine, not even visiting what truths may be therein...legitimate truths covered in your nasty spittle.

You pretend that I cry while I pleasure myself.

[SRG2]

I think you'll find that "invective" is not the correct word. I note that you don't actually doubt my guess. You do seem to be a sensitive little chap.

[ducksalad]

You stats need to take into account that clergy, HS coaches, and local Republican politicians could also be drag queens.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Rudy, for one.

[Martinned]

In answer to your last question, in whose image do you think Adolf Hitler was created?

I can only speak for myself: I don't believe Adolf Hitler was created at all.

But then, I'm not interested in gay bashing, nor in gay bashing based on the say so of a fictional man in the sky. So I'm the opposite of the target audience of not guilty's question.

[Frank Drackman]

We get it, you're Moose-lum, don't let my "I'm with Allah" T-shirt offend you.

[Frank Drackman]

Hitler was actually a very cute Baby, those are the ones to watch out for.

[not guilty]

Your avoidance of the question is duly noted, Dr. Ed 2. Whenever a MAGAt resorts to whataboutism, it is an admission of having no substantive response.

As for me, I don't take the creation story of Genesis 1 (where Yahweh created man and woman simultaneously) literally, nor the separate creation story of Genesis 2 (where Yahweh created man first and woman later). I don't believe Adam to be a literal human being who lived to age 930.

I accordingly don't have any problem believing that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Robert Mugabe were each created when their respective mothers and fathers fucked each other. Each likely resembled his parents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Thank you for showing both your bigotry and your logical fallacy

[not guilty]

Did you fail high school biology, Ed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, but it appears that you did. Not to mention basic logic 101.

[Michael P]

Hey, if he couldn't move goalposts to apply different standards for himself compared to others, how would he ever be able to form an argument?

(Note the differences in valence and criteria between "in whose image do you believe ___ persons are created” and "each created when their respective mothers and fathers fucked each other". Unless NG's theory is that Adam and Eve were somehow "gay and lesbian persons", then probably all believers in Genesis believe that "gay and lesbian persons" were similarly created through sexual intercourse and to some extent resemble their parents. But "not guilty" doesn't recognize this, and cannot meaningfully answer your point.)

[not guilty]

Michael P, I don't claim to believe that Adam and the woman referred to in Genesis (who later came to be called Eve) are actual persons. Accordingly, neither could have had a sexual orientation at all.

If you want to know my thoughts or beliefs, just ask me. Because you do a piss poor job of speculating, and a worse job of projecting. My question about "in whose image" was for those commenters who claim to be pious Christians or Jews.

[Michael P]

Yes, yes, you hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself. We already knew that.

[not guilty]

How do you mean? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

I guess asking for specifics overloaded your pea brain.

If the Hebrew Bible (a/k/a the Old Testament) is taken literally, I am not so sure that being created in the image of Yahweh is a good thing. He is described therein as quite a monster, condoning slavery, commanding genocide and even endorsing cannibalism among family members. https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-shocking-attributes-of-the-god-of-the-bible-that-are-never-preached-about-in-church-5c0bd0bb6cb1

Is a deity who is said to have engineered the Great Flood and the Tenth Plague someone a decent person would want to worship? I don't believe that God is that malevolent, and the Hebrew Scriptures, while containing wisdom, should not be taken as a reliable guide to history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYa-jrREUzM

[Frank Drackman]

Adam and Eve were definitely Hetero.
Adam and Steve though............

[not guilty]

Do you believe that Adam and Eve were actual persons, Frank?

If so, is the Genesis 1 account of creation correct, or the Genesis 2 account, in your opinion?

Or neither?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, I wasn't there.
Were you?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Someone should check with I. Ron Butterfly (H/T Bart Simpson).
I understand that they were there.

[Riva]

Not Guilty, it’s not “whataboutism” ( incidentally the favorite response of most rent-a-trolls here). The point on Hitler and other bad actors demonstrates the silly flaw in your question and your ignorance of certain fundamentals of Christianity. “I have a question for those commenters who regard yourself as a pious Christian or Jew -- in whose image do you believe gay and lesbian persons are created?” A question one would expect from an ignorant religious bigot. I’ll ignore your backhanded “pious” insult and give it a shot. Everyone is created in the image and likeness of God. But being made in the image and likeness of God means every person has inherent dignity, worth, and moral responsibility, not a blank check to do whatever they want.

Now I reject your silly notion of new budding endemic discrimination as well, but that has more to do with your ignorant question on creation.

[not guilty]

Your avoidance of the question about Genesis 1 vis-a-vis Genesis 2 is duly noted.

Do you claim that the man and woman were created simultaneously, or that the man was created before the woman?

Both accounts cannot be true.

[Riva]

Your avoidance of my response to the question YOU asked is duly noted.

[Riva]

Small typo in my response "Now I reject your silly notion of new budding endemic discrimination as well, but that has [nothing] to do with your ignorant question on creation." but doesn't matter, I'm not engaged in a reasonable exchange with a lucid adult anyway.

[not guilty]

I haven't avoided anything, Riva. Whenever you have trouble responding to a question, you simply ignore it. That indicates both cowardice and a basic lack of integrity.

Once more, do you claim that the man and woman were created simultaneously, (Genesis 1:27,) or that the man was created before the woman? (Genesis 2:20-23.) Both accounts cannot be true.

If you don't know, it won't break your damn keyboard to admit it.

[Riva]

You asked a question. I responded. You ignored the response and jumped on to another silly question. Sorry, not playing this variation of sealioning game with you.

[ThePublius]

They certainly can both be true, as Genesis 1 doesn't say they were created simultaneously, it's a summary; Gen. 2 just provides more detail of the process.

[Jack Jordan]

Dr. Ed, it seems we've found some common ground. "It’s like the French revolution. They started with some legitimate issues and then went off the deep end."

Trump is right there with them. He has lost his mind to bloodlust and greed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We need Greenland for issues of national security.

[David Nieporent]

We do not. Again: not a single person ever even thought of such a nutty idea before Trump started talking about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Though Donald Trump has pursued a US acquisition of Greenland more aggressively than any of his predecessors, the idea dates back to the 1860s under President Andrew Johnson."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/brief-history-of-us-trying-failing-buy-greenland-ps-010826

[David Nieporent]

I do not remember Andrew Johnson claiming it was a matter of national security.

[Mr. Bumble]

"In 1867, the same year the United States purchased Alaska from Russia, President Andrew Johnson’s administration formally explored acquiring both Greenland and Iceland. The rationale mirrored Alaska’s acquisition: strategic positioning, maritime access, and long-term security."
http://inedc.com/24/news/u-s-interest-in-greenland-spans-150-years-not-a-presidential-soundbite/

[ducksalad]

When the author decided to just fabricate with no citation a fake history of Andrew Johnson's rationale was, he should have at least tried to use believable vocabulary. Johnson didn't have an online MBA so he didn't use terms like "strategic positioning".

More credible sources, e.g. the report commissioned by Johnson (https://books.google.com/books?id=U9lIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP13#v=onepage&q&f=false?) spin it very differently. Most of the text is about the fisheries and minerals.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Most of the text is about the fisheries and minerals."
But not all. Scroll down to the to the bottom of page 3 to see the political ramifications (I was not able to copy to include it here).

[ducksalad]

OK, so we've established that 2026 article you quoted was at a minimum somewhat misleading about the main rationale.

Also note that your quoted part was about using Greenland as a threat to British North America. As if the US would gain any benefit by launching an attack from Greenland when we had thousands of miles of land border supplied by rail and good roads, and a naval fleet on the Great Lakes. It was a wacky stupid childish concept even then, which is maybe why we didn't do it.

Finally, allow me to point out that the Greenland hawks are now reduced to using Andrew Johnson as an authority. A president who is on damn near every Worst 10 Presidents list, barely survived impeachment, and actually decided NOT to buy Greenland.

[Mr. Bumble]

Still have that wild hair up your ass.
"Finally, allow me to point out that the Greenland hawks are now reduced to using Andrew Johnson as an authority. A president who is on damn near every Worst 10 Presidents list, barely survived impeachment, and actually decided NOT to buy Greenland."
My initial comment was a response to David Notsoimportant:

David Nieporent 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

I do not remember Andrew Johnson claiming it was a matter of national security.

Johnson was not alone as several administrations showed an interest in acquiring Greenland including Harry Truman who offered $100 million in gold.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does David remember the CSS Alabama? Or the CSS Shenandoah? Or any of the other Confederate Raiders?

https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/confederate-commerce-raiders-and-privateers.html

As would be demonstrated 80 years later with the Battle of the Atlantic, Greenland and Iceland were strategically important to trade routes between America and Europe. Greenland has deep water ports which would make it quite valuable both as a coaling station and as a port to repair storm damaged ships.

[Dr. Ed 2]

President Eisenhower wanted to buy Greenland for national security.

Eisenhower….

[ducksalad]

Other sources put it in a different light:

"In 1955, the Joint Chiefs nonetheless proposed to Eisenhower that the nation again try to purchase Greenland, writing that "sovereignty provides the firmest basis of assuring that a territory and its resources will be available for military use when needed. United States sovereignty over Greenland would remove any doubt as to the unconditional availability of bases". The State Department responded "the time was long past when such a plan would be feasible", because Greenland was constitutionally and psychologically an integral part of Denmark. An attempt to acquire the island might endanger American access, and unnecessary because "we are permitted to do almost anything, literally, that we want to".

[Mr. Bumble]

What would you expect from the striped pants crowd?

[Riva]

It is not “nutty. “ You, crazy Dave, are simply ignorant of the importance of Greenland as a strategic location for U.S., NATO, and broader Western security. But you still troll on. Not surprising since ignorance has never stopped you from commenting on constitutional matters either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Playing the part of Fredo Corelone today is David Notsoimportant:
Fredo Corleone:
It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

[David Nieporent]

It is entirely nutty. It's already part of NATO and the U.S. already has full rights to use Greenland for military reasons, so owning it adds nothing. You are simply programmed to repeat Trump talking points, the same way you wait for him to make legal arguments and then pretend they're yours. If tomorrow he says, "Psych; I was just kidding about this to make libs' head explode," you'd be posting, "Ha, ha, stupids got worked up about this when it was obvious he was only joking."

[Mr. Bumble]

If Greenland is already a part of NAT it is the equivalent of Hunter Biden's unrecognized daughter.
Denmark's presence is less than a dozen ships and few if any troops on the ground.
"The Danish defence minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, said on Thursday that he planned to establish a more permanent military presence on Greenland “with a larger Danish contribution”. Military personnel from various Nato countries would be in Greenland on a rotation system, he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/greenland-defence-nato-denmark-prime-minister-european-troops

[David Nieporent]

Denmark's presence is less than a dozen ships and few if any troops on the ground.

That's because there's no military threat to the place! (Except, of course, from Trump himself!) But if Russia signaled it was going to attack, NATO would beef up defenses. Except Russia would never do such a thing because it's part of NATO. (Until Trump destroys NATO, of course.)

[Riva]

First Russia is joke in the Obama years, then it's the main threat to US national security under the first Trump administration, now it's not really anything at all, except in Europe where it's apparently nearly midnight on the Doomsday clock because of Russia. And of course, China is not showing any interest in the arctic polar regions.

This history might give some pause but life is a lot easier for an unprincipled rent-a-troll.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the Obama years were more than a decade ago, so saying that things are different now than then would hardly be crazy. But why do you think that Russia was a joke back then? Mitt Romney correctly called the country our greatest foe back in 2012.

[Riva]

Mitt Romney wasn't the president. Mitt Romeny was the butt of Obama’s “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back” joke that was praised by mainstream commentators and liberal analysts contemptuous of Romney's alleged Cold War mindset. No doubt you laughed along with them.

It's nice that you're trying but you probably should just stick with your asinine "programming" insults" crazy Dave. It's more in keeping with the character of an asshole such as yourself.

[David Nieporent]

Mitt Romney wasn't the president.

So? Despite what you think, the constitution does not imbue someone with intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom by virtue of being elected. Presidential opinions are not true simply by virtue of the fact that the president holds them or "finds" them. Romney was right; Obama was not.

[Riva]

WTF? I never claimed or even suggested, here or anywhere else, that "the constitution...imbue[s] someone with intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom by virtue of being elected." The "cult" insults are your jackass game. I noted that Obama was president and set foreign policy, not Mitt Romney. And democrats by and large followed the "One" at his heels. As noted above, you too I have no doubt.

[not guilty]

"Except Russia would never do such a thing because it's part of NATO."

WTF???

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Denmark is part of NATO, not Russia. Context, my man.

[Riva]

Crazy Dave needs some help defining some fundamentals before engaging in another rent-a-troll rant, although he (she or whatever) does tend to over use the "talking points" and "programming" insults. I guess you get the rent-a-troll you pay for. "Full rights" is a funny thing when it really doesn't include full rights and certainly doesn't address full authority to prevent incursions into the area by adversarial powers or the responsible control of critical resources but for the colonizing European power negligently controlling/maintaining a territory, it certainly is a good thing to have someone else pay your defense bills.

[grb]

Bot is programmed to support everything Trump said yesterday. But it's now today and Trump has beat a panicked TACO retreat, claiming "victory" on the most comical of grounds.

His Barbie Doll spokesperson is likewise flailing, saying Trump didn't confuse Greenland & Iceland during yet another one of those speeches that had the whole world laughing at what an idiot our country's leader is.

So Bot's programming is dated (to put it mildly). Once again, its orange-tinted-popsicle god cut Bot off at the knees. Of course Trump doesn't care when he makes his supporters look like chumps. dupes, and fools. Not in the slightest. He sees them just as gullible marks to be conned. And Bot can't care. It just sits there waiting to be reprogrammed.

But you kinda wonder what a human cultist like Bumble thinks. Shouldn't it bother him to be played by Trump yet again?

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's from lived experience. Honor it.

[not guilty]

What is from lived experience, Redheadedcan'tspellPharoah?

[RedheadedPharoh]

The disgust for homosexuality and the gay lifestyle.

People see gays and concluded they don't like them or their lifestyle choices.

[not guilty]

Have you got a Ted Haggard problem, Red?

It's called homophobia because it is an irrational fear of one's own latent impulses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, now do heterophobia…

[not guilty]

Who is afraid of heterosexuality, Dr. Ed 2?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You are.

[not guilty]

No, TIP, I quite enjoy heterosexuality. Neither orientation is something for a secure person to fear.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, I grabbed the low-hanging fruit.

[David Nieporent]

ISWYDT.

[LexAquilia]

What's irrational about it? You think all these people and their new found disgust for gays developed since gays have been out and open is irrational?

Why do you deny all of these Americans any agency? They saw what LGBTQ does to society, and they find it disgusting.

Perfectly rational.

[Dr. Ed 2]

May I make a distinction between homosexuality and promiscuity?

It is the promiscuity and related inappropriate displays of graphic sexuality that I object to, and I feel the same way if heterosexuals do the same things.

I’d object to someone reading stories to four-year-olds dress like this: https://www.patriots.com/cheerleaders/

[LexAquilia]

You may. Most others don't. But you may.

[David Nieporent]

Promiscuity? If you think drag queens are having sex in front of the kids at the library, then you're even more delusional than usual.

[John 4]

Anyone who thinks very much about gay people is usually projecting.

[LexAquilia]

Anyone who thinks very much about White people is usually projecting.

Anyone who thinks very much about illegals is projecting.

Anyone who thinks very much about fascism is projecting.

See how stupid your beliefs are?

[Commenter_XY]

NG...Every human being is created in the image of God.

[not guilty]

Including gays and lesbians? Then how do you claim to justify the curious MAGAt hatred of children of God?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

How have you never heard that phrase before?

[Michael P]

"not guilty" is guilty of having an endless number of things go in one ear and out the other, for want of anything in there to intercept the information.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, he's got stuff in his Cranium, it's brown and smells bad.

[Josh R]

Are you saying that God created gays but does not want them to act on the urges he created them with? Instead, he wants them to live loveless lives alone or with a person of the opposite sex?

[Life of Brian]

the urges he created them with

Created with? After decades of shouting down the gay gene theory, this is frankly pretty surprising.

[Josh R]

You think being gay (or straight) is a choice? Most people say they don't have a choice and that could be completely environmental (comparable to native language which is very hard to change) or partially environmental.

[Life of Brian]

I think the gay community has had an immense amount of trouble declaring a major on this for much of my life, and seems to have settled down into some sort of muddy fence-straddling on the nature/nurture question.

Rightly or wrongly, I read "God created them with their urges" as rather more definitive than that.

[Josh R]

I understood your position that you don't buy into "God created them with their urges." But, you did not answer my question. Second try: do you think being gay (or straight) is a choice?

[Life of Brian]

do you think being gay (or straight) is a choice?

You packed a lot into that question, so this may take a bit.

First, I'm working on the assumption that "being gay" or "being straight" refers to being attracted, not acting on it. We certainly all choose to do (or not) the latter.

With that, opposite-sex attraction is an eons-old biological imperative -- for obvious reasons. So no, I don't see that in the same realm of just preferring chicken to fish.

Same-sex attraction can't, again by definition, lay claim to that sort of biological hardwiring. Now we're in the realm of "I'd rather," not "I must."

There are all sorts of ways for a given person to get to "I'd rather," with many of them likely too early in development or too subtle to even come to mind as a driver. One rather straightforward example is the research showing that gay parents have an above-average rate of gay children. Kids are sponges, and normalize their surroundings whatever those might be.

And apparently for some people sexual orientation changes over time -- sometimes back and forth. Even if for some reason you label that as something other than a choice, it certainly seems really hard to square with a biological cause.

So ultimately your question smacks of an excluded middle fallacy, the middle being developmental influences. Whether or not you label the effect of those influences a "choice," that's a far cry from "I was born this way."

[Josh R]

I stated above that sexuality not being a choice could be in part environmental, perhaps even entirely environmental (e.g., native language is 100% environmental but for the vast majority not a choice). I am not asking anything (at this point) about nature versus nurture. Only whether you believe being gay (who you are attracted to, not your conduct) is a choice (i.e., is it highly resistant to change).

[Life of Brian]

Huh. I gave you what I thought was a rather in-depth and thoughtful answer, but it really feels like you're looking for a soundbite.

Separately, I don't understand the definition of "choice" you just threw in after three rounds. Highly resistant to what change, and how does that make it a choice as opposed to a biological driver? That really seems backwards.

[Josh R]

Although in theory I can change my native language, it is really, really hard to do so. People rightly perceive they cannot change it. It feels like a trait, not a choice. So, for most intents and purposes we can treat people having no choice over their native language (even though a few do manage to change it).

It is in that light, that I asked the question about being gay. Most people feel they cannot change their sexuality. Many try and few succeed. Agreed?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so "highly resistant to change" is not choice, but the opposite of choice. I misunderstood the "i.e." in your last post.

As for "many try and few succeed" to change their sexuality, when has that ever been true? At least the last generation and a half of the world I've been living in has been actively discouraged from even trying, if not flatly instructed that it's not possible.

[not guilty]

Life of Birdbrain, when did you "choose" to be hetero? What criteria did you evaluate in making your "choice"?

Did you sample each orientation before deciding your "preference"?

[David Nieporent]

Although in theory I can change my native language, it is really, really hard to do so. People rightly perceive they cannot change it. It feels like a trait, not a choice. So, for most intents and purposes we can treat people having no choice over their native language (even though a few do manage to change it).

I think you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "native" here. One can learn to speak a second language fluently — like a native, so to speak — but that wouldn't change what one's native language actually was. The latter is fixed and immutable.

[Josh R]

Of course your native language can't be changed because it's the first one you learned. My point was it is very, very hard for people to learn a second language as an adult where they have the same fluency as their native language, especially if the languages are far apart like English and Chinese.

[Bob from Ohio]

How do you claim to justify your curious hatred of "MAGAt" children of God?

[not guilty]

I feel disdain and contempt for the MAGA cult. I hate very few of them, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, disdain and contempt for humans made in God's image. Seems bad.

So disdain and contempt for gays would be fine?

[not guilty]

The concept of being made in God's image calls to mind a joke from decades ago.

A curious eight-year-old asked his priest, "Father, is God white or black?"

The priest replied, "God is both white and black."

The youngster then asked, "Father, is God male or female?"

The priest replied, "God is both male and female."

Next the boy asked, "Father, is God straight or gay?"

The (Episcopal) priest replied, "God is both straight and gay."

The child cogitated on all of this for a bit and then asked, "Father, is God Michael Jackson?"

[Sarcastr0]

Every human being is created in the image of God

If you lived by this ideal, you'd stop calling the Palestinians animals.

[Riva]

Wow, from a troll practically romantically involved with belittling, dehumanizing insults, give me a second to recover from the blinding light of projection.

And, just so you understand, while there may strictly be moral concerns with the “animal” insult, it is not directed to or labeling all residents of Gaza, it is employed as a shorthand criticism of the sick violent behavior of Hamas.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you'd stop calling the Palestinians animals."

They need to stop acting like animals first.

[John 4]

Does the whiplash ever hurt?

[Brett Bellmore]

In the Creator's image, though we are all flawed mirrors of that image.

I suspect bigotry has become more fashionable for a couple reasons.

1. Various systems of legal and extra-legal preference have, predictably, eroded the principle of EQUAL rights. And once you persuade people that equal rights aren't obligatory, most people aren't self hating enough to want to be on the bottom of the pecking order.

2. Nobody likes their oppressor.

You can say "marginalized groups" all you want, but everybody is still going to notice who gets the special treatment, the quotas, obligatory over-representation in media, can't safely be criticized.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, in libertopia there will be no bigotry.

who gets the special treatment, the quotas, obligatory over-representation in media, can't safely be criticized.
If I didn't know you, I'd think this was about Jews.

Your reductive utopianism leads you to assert silly things.

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's not either or nor your stupid strawman. Why do you always argue in fallacies?

What do the data say about Jew over-representation in power? What do the data say about privileged treatment for certain favored demographics? Notably including illegals?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's anything the least bit suspect about Jews being over-represented in positions of power. Different groups are not similarly situated in terms of average IQ or cultural endowments, and at least the Ashkenazi Jews happen to stand at the top of the IQ pecking order. That has its impact, doesn't require any privileged treatment at all.

I've always thought it was hilarious that The Bell Curve was attacked as white supremacy, when it made pretty clear that whites were not actually at the top, we had both Asians and Jews above us.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s not just IQ, the Jews value education.
Jewish children are doing schoolwork while black children out bouncing basketballs, we should expect a difference in outcome 10 years later from all of this?

Sure, there may be differences in aptitude — there aren’t a lot of Jewish basketball players — but when you look at the hours that write children spend practicing basketball and consider those hours could’ve been spent doing schoolwork, you have to recognize the lost potential.

[David Nieporent]

It’s not just IQ, the Jews value education.
Jewish children are doing schoolwork while black children out bouncing basketballs, we should expect a difference in outcome 10 years later from all of this?

1980 called; it wants its hot takes back.

Sure, there may be differences in aptitude — there aren’t a lot of Jewish basketball players —

Jews dominated the early NBA.

[Life of Brian]

Jews dominated the early NBA.

Do you honestly believe that was strictly based on merits?

[David Nieporent]

Well, no; it's because we threatened opponents with the space laser if they didn't put us on the team.

[Life of Brian]

OK, I chuckled.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Mark Twain's essay "Concerning the Jews".
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Concerning_the_Jews

[not guilty]

"Jews dominated the early NBA."

I wonder why that was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA

[LexAquilia]

My my, how White Supremacist of you to make that argument:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/outcry-after-nyt-writer-appears-to-argue-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-smarter/

The arguments in the paper are controversial among scientists. One of its three co-authors, Henry Harpending, is celebrated among white supremacists for arguing elsewhere that human civilization has accelerated human evolution outside Africa and left white Europeans genetically predisposed to be more committed to their families and to possess a stronger work ethic than people from sub-Saharan Africa.

Welcome to Race Realism, Brett. It's good to be grounded in facts. But the Jewish IQ thing is but a myth.

[David Nieporent]

The intellectual inferiority of white supremacists, however, is firmly established.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, you're an idiot if you think that sort of rhetoric actually works, rather than just making you feel self-righteous.

Can't address the actual argument, can you? We've gone through decades of racial (and other!) quotas and preferences being rationalized and imposed on the public.

You can persuade the public that discrimination is morally wrong. We'd almost won that battle for a while, which is why even in California, the public voted to prohibit racial discrimination in their schools.

What you can't do is persuade the public that discrimination is morally right, and THEY should be the victims of it. Most people are simply not that self-loathing.

Well, congratulations! The left finally succeeded in convincing the upcoming generation that racial discrimination could be acceptable. And they want it to be in their own favor, who could have seen that coming?

Aren't you proud? Why aren't you reveling in your victory?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you claim bigotry is due to government preferences.

We have history. Lots of history. Well before that was a thing. And, hey, bigotry.

You're a utopian who blames just about every evil in the world in people not following your particular hodge-podge of policies to do some kind of socially conservative free market police state.

I know you want to argue the morality of affirmative action here, but I'm merely pointing out from a practical level you're way overselling your prescription.

That you think intelligence is heritable and racially correlated is also kind of an issue with your moral high ground.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, you don't need government preferences to get bigotry. But we were on our way to making bigotry unacceptable, until sustaining preferences required trying to convince people that discrimination wasn't necessarily bad.

"That you think intelligence is heritable and racially correlated is also kind of an issue with your moral high ground."

It's immoral to respond to evidence? Weird.

You think brute facts have to conform to your personal moral convictions. I think that's insane.

[Riva]

Dude, ask a white male contractor in Virginia about racial and gender preferences.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, you misunderstand. People who believe that some discrimination sometimes can be acceptable to a limited extent for a greater good don't loathe themselves. They loathe others who for long periods of time imposed far more harmful and obviously vicious discrimination for no good reason whatsoever.

[Brett Bellmore]

They loathe dead people, and want to take it out on the living?

[grb]

Rightwingers are such freaks! Forget your stew of hystertical-cum-pious crap and hear a simpler explanation. The reasons I support affirmative actions are:

1. It helps solve a terrible historical wrong.
2. So is good for the future of the country.
3. And I can always find a job because I rate one.
4. And I'm not some whiny snowflake loser who thinks my "Whiteness" is threatened.

In fact, I barely think about my "Whiteness" at all. It's one of the many reasons I could never be a rightwinger. I find people who wail about the terrible burden of being born male or White to be pathetic clowns.

[Michael Ejercito]

It helps solve a terrible historical wrong.
How so?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. There was another great historical wrong that resulted in Jewish people being a significantly smaller proportion of the population than they would have otherwise.

But reducing the non-Jewish population to correct the ratio wouldn't solve the problem, it would compound it.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"They loathe dead people"

You think that people like the red headed dildo are zombies?

[SRG2]

Increases also appeared in bias toward Black, darker-skinned, older, disabled and overweight people,

Judging by patterns of obesity across the country, I will guess that the bias against gays, blacks, etc. is disproportionately from overweight people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A chill wind blows. "

Gay activists tied the gay horse to the Trans wagon but the wagon has lost its wheels so is a drag on the horse now.

Best to cut the wagon loose but the activists will not and libs in general are too cowed to do so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A chill wind blows. Bigotry has become more fashionable.

Elections has consequences, I guess.

I have a question for those commenters who regard yourself as a pious Christian or Jew -- in whose image do you believe gay and lesbian persons are created?

I'm not sure how far that takes you. Charles Manson was created in the image of God, I suppose they would say, too.

[Josh R]

Manson chose his conduct and is hated for that reason. To be sure, gays choose their conduct too. But far from Manson, that conduct is what is necessary to a have a loving romantic relationship.

The haters either have to argue that being gay (not the conduct) is a choice (and you can have a loving romantic relationship with a person of the opposite sex) or God made you gay but doesn't want you to have a fulfilled life. The latter strikes me as arguing God is a sadist, not much of an argument.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Parsing the differences is child's play. It goes beyond them being created in the image of God.

[Josh R]

I must be too old for child's play. I'm not following your argument.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Manson chose his conduct and is hated for that reason. To be sure, gays choose their conduct too. But far from Manson, that conduct is what is necessary to a have a loving romantic relationship.

So, there are obvious differences between Manson and gays, even granting that both are created in the image of God.

The haters either have to argue that being gay (not the conduct) is a choice (and you can have a loving romantic relationship with a person of the opposite sex) or God made you gay but doesn't want you to have a fulfilled life. The latter strikes me as arguing God is a sadist, not much of an argument.

Haters will argue various things. They often argue gays can find fulfilling lives without being in same sex relationships.

Haters also acknowledge God created, for "his" own purposes, not always known to us humans, people who, in some fashion, cannot have fulfilling lives. They compare having same sex relationships to various horrible desires like having sex with animals.

I agree their view of the Almighty overall doesn't sound ideal.

[Josh R]

The two things you say haters will argue is the two things I said they will argue. I would characterize those arguments as far worse than not ideal.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The two things you say haters will argue is the two things I said they will argue. I would characterize those arguments as far worse than not ideal.

I was using understatement.

Anyway, the argument is often either (1) gays can find fulfillment in other ways [including via conversion theory) and/or (2) there are people with horrible urges in the world, we shouldn't just let them fulfill them. The debate then turns on the actual urges.

(Someone with an urge to have sex with children vs. a range of other sexual urges that are benign.)

So, again, the details are complicated, and "image of God" won't settle things.

[Josh R]

The pedophile analogy is instructive. If God makes you a pedophile we can all agree you should not act on those urges because of the harm done to others. So perhaps we can conclude that God is a sadist and that would justify believing God doesn't want gays to act on their urges either (assuming we accept God's wishes without applying logic that would distinguish pedophiles and gays).

But in that case, the faithful have to accept a rather strange all-perfect being who is a sadist. It may not be settled, but the arguments are very, very weak (we agree on your understatement).

[Stella Link's Ghost]

But, God is all perfect so if sadism is not among the perfect and God does it, it can't be sadism.

Also. God's all loving. So, if "God hates fags", hating gays must actually be love.

Don't know if the Austin Lounge Lizards are still active:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8B767itf0

[Michael Ejercito]

To be sure, gays choose their conduct too. But far from Manson, that conduct is what is necessary to a have a loving romantic relationship.
According to the moral tradition passed on by the rabbis at the Nazareth synagogue taught in the last B.C. decade, a synagogue attended by a certain Miriam bat Jehoiakim among others, wanting a loving romantic relationship is no justification for their conduct.

[Josh R]

So, God is a sadist?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"God is a sadist?"

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion for believers. I think a better conclusion would be that the "moral tradition passed on by the rabbis at the Nazareth synagogue" is worthy of note as a historical artifact and nothing more. But that's just my opinion.

[Bunny495]

As a work-study student I working at the computer department help desk. At the time the dress code for computer guys was jeans and a T-shirt. I can still recall listening to the radio driving to work one morning when the DJ said something about some made up gay appreciation day and commented show your support for gays by wearing blue jeans. I almost snorted my Micky D's coffee through my nose.

This is one of many what I view as distortions by liberals in general and gay supporters in particular. Another example was the claim that 20% of males have had a gay experience. One description of a gay experience was if you ever played football and someone slapped you on your buttisimo or you slapped someone on their buttisimo it was a gay experience. I always wondered if I has slapped more babes on the butt more times than I was slapped/or slapped someone playing football and basketball that would override my "gay experience".

[grb]

Bunny495 : " ....when the DJ said something about some made up gay appreciation day and commented show your support for gays by wearing blue jeans."

Don't it take ya back! While a college student in the late 1970s, the university gay student organization covered the campus with flyers proclaiming a day to support gays by wearing jeans. Thru sheer chutzpah, they managed to wipe the college free of denim. And this was due less to any lack of support (most students didn't care) than cowardice and fear.

Which was the lesson being taught : How it feels to have your life managed in its smallest details by fear of your neighbor's glance. I thought it was one of the most brilliant protest stunts ever seen. And me? I wore jeans - but only because I had nothing else clean and was too damn stubborn to worry about it.

[Jmaie]

I’d need to see the methodology before coming to any conclusions. Is it an actual increase in anti-gay bias, or is it just less enthusiastic support for gay rights…

Boils down to how the questions are asked, doesn’t it? “To what extent do you prefer a straight people over gay people?” is pretty meaningless without context - I’m reminded of a conversation I had with a friend when we were headed out to grab drinks after work. He asked if I’d rather go to a straight bar or a gay bar, and of course, the answer to that would depend entirely on whether I was looking for amorous company or not.

[Roger S]

It is mainly a complaint that movie fans prefer normal heterosexual love stories over homosexual plots.

[Kazinski]

I can't answer the religious question, but as for "turning against gay people", America has never been gayer, even going back to the lumberjack era, or powdered wigs and knee breeeches.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When mid-term elections are held in Minnesota, suppose it remains under ICE occupation as it is today, but with additional federal troops mobilized and sent there under the Insurrection Act. Suppose also that senior Democratic Party government officials have been arrested and remain under federal indictments. Would it be possible under those conditions to hold free and fair elections, and get timely vote counts which would be trustworthy?

Would the situation be worse if senior Democratic Party elected officials were held in custody during the interval between the start of voting and release of a certified election count?

If that seems like a problematic situation for Minnesota—and potentially for other states which might be closely contested—what legal actions to prevent it should be happening now? If actions such as any you might suggest were happening, what kind of court supervision, on what schedule, would be necessary to make it work to produce election results that would be accepted as free, fair, and reliable?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Opium Dreams" by Lathrop. Available on Amazon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — I don't blame you for dodging the questions. Everything I mentioned has either already happened, or been explicitly threatened. You okay if the courts just give it all a pass?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Everything I mentioned has either already happened, or been explicitly threatened."
Neither Minneapolis nor Minnesota have been occupied by anyone.
No official are being held in custody; fever dream projections aside.
Looks like Mother Nature will slow things down with the frigid weather forecast for the next week or so.

[Michael P]

On the other hand, the left told us very vociferously in 2024 that the only way to have free and fair elections was for prominent politicians from the other party to be under indictment, ideally jailed, and perhaps barred from being named on ballots. It is passing strange that Stephen Lathrop pretends to be concerned about this state of affairs for a midterm election.

It would be helpful if he understood that Minnesota has a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and further that labeling them "senior Democratic Party government officials" gives away that such people exercise their offices for partisan ends rather than just being senior government officials.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Many Democrats are already saying it's needed for 2028.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, 2029. They're raving about putting their political enemies behind bars, and packing the Court to get it to survive judicial review. But they can't do it until they're back in power.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't live in a political novel, you paranoiac.

Meanwhile Trump's goon squad is arresting citizens without cause, shooting people, and you're into it.
Yeah, those fucks deserve to be in jail. For doing the shit you claim liberals want to do.

In the end, you're the evil liberal you've conjured up.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We don't live in a political novel, you paranoiac."

Then proceeds to write the summary for a paranoid political novel in the very next line.

[Jmaie]

To be fair, Stephen‘s post would fit nicely into a paranoid political novel as well…

[jb]

"On the other hand, the left told us very vociferously in 2024 that the only way to have free and fair elections was for prominent politicians from the other party to be under indictment,"

Who from the left was saying that? And which prominent politicians are we talking about? I try to pay attention to what's going on politically and never heard anyone claim such a thing except maybe on Reddit.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop is a liberal lunatic.

[Swede425]

Goddamn, theater kids are the worst.
SO desperate to live in their made up dystopian world where they get to be the hero. I think it's an escape mechanism used to forget how bland they actually are.
When this kind of retardedness gets rewarded, you just get more of it. Notice how the trannies are starting to disappear? I guess it's not cool anymore. Too bad for the dipshit parents who bought into it. Congrats on your mentally unstable, mutilated kids I guess. They can always go yell at ICE since they'll never be gainfully employed. What a tribe of dead-end losers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

bumble, do not forget that Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeous corpus in Maryland in 1864 — that chief justice Roger Taney wrote in his diary that he expected Lincoln have him arrested.

Yet Maryland had elections in 1864. As did the rest of the country, and Lincoln was actually surprised to win, as he didn’t think he would.

[David Nieporent]

that chief justice Roger Taney wrote in his diary that he expected Lincoln have him arrested.

No, he didn't. Though he did express the sentiment to others that he worried about being arrested, so I guess you can have partial credit.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Neither Minneapolis nor Minnesota have been occupied by anyone."

Who are you fooling? Some 3,000 federal officers are operating in a a city of just 430,000, compared with the few hundred sent to Chicago this past fall (population 2.7 million). In fact, Trump has sent 13% of his immigration forces to Minnesota and now talks of sending in the military. Yet Minnesota's immigrant population ranks 23rd in the US, far behind red states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Out of about six million residents, Minnesota has an estimated 130,000 who are in America illegally, a number on par with Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana. Minnesota’s population of immigrants here illegally stands at an estimated 2.2%, about half the national average, according to the Pew Research Center.

They are not there for law enforcement purposes. They are there as an invading army, sent to Minnesota to punish the state's people because their leaders oppose Trump. And this is an occupation force encouraged to be pointlessly brutal and confident they are above any law. By now they know they can even get away with murder and there won't even be the pretense of an investigation. And Trump keeps trying to push more occupation troops into the city - which is now generating endless video clips of goons rousting random strangers for their "papers".

All of which is as un-American as you can get, but Trump demeans, debases, and destroys everything he touches. But the true patriots here are the people out protesting this loathsome abuse of presidential power.

[Swede425]

LOL!
OMG! You unhinged looney.
Look at what you're saying.
Absolute drama queen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maryland, 1864.

[Krayt]

Suppose also that senior Democratic Party government officials have been arrested and remain under federal indictments.

This would be horrible, of course. Performing detailed investigstions of one's political opponents because they are one's opponents, and arresting and charging and prosecuting and fining them is a terrible misuse of the system!

It matters not if the issues are "real" or not, as hyperbolated by talking heads trying to help get the political opponents. What's wrong is wrong.

Nobody learns. They just fume until the next time they are in power.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't think there are many gold bugs here but for what it's worth it looks like gold will break $5000.00/oz.

[Martinned]

Still a terrible inflation hedge, but a good alternative to Bitcoin...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — Let's see more respect for Bumble's investment acumen. He's either offering you an opportunity to get in at the top, or he's predicting Trump will further trash the economy.

[Mr. Bumble]

I did neither you fuckwit (H/T SRG2).
Just a statement of the fact that gold appears ready to break another threshold.
Seems like most precious metals are following with silver at around $95.00/oz, an all time high, although it would have to reach $200.00+ to match inflation adjusted numbers from when the Hunt brothers sought to corner the market.
By the way, what are your billionaire friends recommending?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"By the way, what are your billionaire friends recommending?"

DJT?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Lathrop. He's the one who claimed to have billionaire friends, though I doubt DJT is one of them.

[EllaWilson]

My Bitcoin portfolio is only up 823% since I started investing.

[SRG2]

Gold fits into a portfolio as a low-correlation asset. I did some analysis a few years ago when I was running a small pension fund and while a diversified portfolio with a modest amount of gold didn't get any evidently better returns, the Sharpe Ratio went up.

[Moderation4ever]

I see this as a concern mostly from the standpoint of the public perception of the economy. I have repeatedly suggested that the second Trump administration like the first will end in a recession. I think a lot of other people expect the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

The first one ended in a recession because the states used Covid as an excuse to go insane and shut their economies down. I don't see that happening again in the next few years, so what cause are you proposing this time?

[Swede425]

They always seem to forget that part.

[Moderation4ever]

A lot of people, even some centrist and left of center, allow President Trump off the hook for the recession citing the Covid pandemic. I disagree with this idea. I think that President Trump handled the pandemic very poorly on a broad number of fronts. I also think his poor handling of the economy before the pandemic hit feed into making the recession worse. He passed an unnecessary tax cut and pushed tariffs that stressed the market. I definitely think he could have done far better. When the pandemic hit he spend money wildly with little consideration of the consequence. I like to point out that President Biden with the Fed face the bounce back inflation and brought that inflation under control all without triggering a second recession. So a steady hand on the economy is important and Trump is no where near a steady hand.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's none the less the case that almost all the economic damage was a result of the shutdowns, which were state policy.

[Sarcastr0]

In the counterfactual of no shutdowns, the number of deaths is not at all established, other than that it would be higher by come amount.

Nothing does economic damage like mass deaths.

That isn't to say which way the counterfactual swings, just that it's not nearly as clear as you think.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Some among the MAGA commenters here like to claim that Trump's lying is nothing extraordinary among politicians.

Either yesterday, or earlier today, he was ranting and raving about how inflation when he took office was the worst inflation that America had ever endured. This is false, and it's always been false, and yet he repeats it, over and over. In fact, in January 2025 inflation was within spitting distance of 3% and now, inflation is within spitting distance of 3%, perhaps down a bit, but whether it wil remain down is yet to be seen. Further, the highest inflation of the Biden term was significantly less than that of the late 70s and early 80s and not nearly as enduring. Unless Trump is a complete idion, he must know this and yet, he repeats the falshoods over and over.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sad to see that Pam Grier has become obese and suffering from dementia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

speaking of disappointments, the original Daisy Duke from the 70s has become rather rotund.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So Europe is gonna ban American goods, and what do they think that Trump will do them?

[Martinned]

Whatever the fuck he wants, just like now. What's the difference?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This was written 50 years ago by Gordon Sinclair as a Canadian newspaper editorial.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210514110639/https://www.broadcasting-history.ca/in-depth/news-broadcasting-unique-stories-americans-original-script

Maybe America should say to hell with the rest of the world.

[Martinned]

Maybe America should say to hell with the rest of the world.

What do you mean "maybe"? That's what the US has been doing since Project 2025 took over the White House.

Look at how many "fuck you"'s to the rest of the world there are in the week 1 executive orders alone: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/28/nx-s1-5276293/trump-executive-orders

[Jack Jordan]

It is past time to tell Trump he's fired. The People in our Constitution decreed that "[t]he President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction" any "high Crimes [or high] Misdemeanors." Trump is guilty of "Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States," which Congress (and a previous president) defined in 18 U.S.C. § 371.

As the Preamble emphasizes, "We the People" did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" for particularly important purposes, including to "establish Justice" and to "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." The People in Article VI established that "the supreme Law of the Land" consists exclusively of our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance thereof" and "all Treaties."

Trump already abused American military power and put American lives at danger needlessly to bomb Iran and Nigeria, invade Venezuela and summarily kill purported Venezuelans at sea. Now, Trump is abusing our economic and military power to threaten our allies in violation of treaties that are part of the supreme law of the land. Trump shouldn't be given the chance to take us to war (military or economic) against our most important allies--especially when they're already combatting one of our most powerful enemies after it invaded and is destroying another nation.

Too many times and too dangerously, Trump has trampled on our Constitution (especially the First Amendment), federal laws made in pursuance of our Constitution and treaties. It is past time to impeach, convict and remove Trump from office.

[Brett Bellmore]

"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction" any "high Crimes [or high] Misdemeanors." Trump is guilty of"

Unclear about the difference between somebody, in your opinion, being guilty of something, and their having been convicted of it?

[Frank Drackman]

She was Hot AF in "Jackie Brown" in fact, if I had to have a woman hold a gun up against my Schlong, it'd be her.

[Moderation4ever]

Great movie, great job on Pam Grier's part.

[Moderation4ever]

Very sad. She did some great work as an actress.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"obese and suffering from dementia."

She should run for president.

[A Japanese Student]

Today was the sentencing day for Tetsuya Yamagami, now convicted of murdering Shinzo Abe. The assassin got life in prison, exactly as the prosecutor asked.

Some of the jurors (who participated in sentencing) appeared in an interview; they said the fact he killed a former PM did not influence the sentence.

[bloocow2]

Are people still doing investigations into the Moonies and their political connections in Japan? I remember it being a huge scandal after the assassination. Which, in terms of achieving his stated aims of drawing attention to this kind of thing, makes Yamagami pretty successful as far as assassins go.

[A Japanese Student]

Not much, anymore. There were too many other political scandals since then. The church itself is still in a legal battle trying not to get judicially dissolved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A brief summary of how the church could be dissolved would be interesting to read.

[Martinned]

Presumably it can be dissolved in the same way any other incorporated entity can be. An organisation has legal personality only for as long as the law says it does. In most countries dissolving a legal person on the grounds of unlawful acts or goals requires some kind of court process, but legally it's not complicated. (The problem is usually how you meet the evidentiary bar.) Of course, just because the legal person is dissolved doesn't mean the organisation stops existing...

[Frank Drackman]

Don't they still hang murderers in Japan? Who do you have to kill to get hung?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't think killing someone will change the size of your package.

[Frank Drackman]

Comedy's not as easy as it looks.

[Bwaaah]

With a bit more pop, that one could've gotten wings.

"I don't know. I killed my ex wife last year, and my dick is smaller than ever."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gavin knew some should be tried for treason and executed.
There was a time in this country when politics ended at the waters edge, when the opposing party gave lip service to supporting our president.

Newsom is over in Switzerland, acting as a US President. Most countries would summarily execute him for that.

And what rate does he have to participate in Davos? Why can’t Trump just have his passport revoked?

[Martinned]

Most countries would summarily execute him for that.

Get help. (Or at least stop commenting here if you aren't capable of writing something sane.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Take Great Britain, a country historically affiliated with free speech for the past four 500 years. Then I’m throwing people in jail off saying things on Twitter the government doesn’t like.

What do you think Great Britain would do if someone went to Daros and said something that the British government didn’t like?

[RedheadedPharoh]

If he was a foreign invader they would give him sexual access to all teen and preteen boys and girls. But only Whites.

[not guilty]

"If he was a foreign invader they would give him sexual access to all teen and preteen boys and girls. But only Whites."

Who would do so. Redheadedcan'tspellPharoah?

[LexAquilia]

The UK government. Like they're doing right now before your very eyes.

[Martinned]

Get help.

[John F. Carr]

Around the time Princess Diana was in the news reports claimed that the last capital offense left in the UK was adultery that might produce an heir to the throne.

Wikipedia says capital punishment was formally abolished soon after.

[ThePublius]

"Or at least stop commenting here if you aren't capable of writing something sane."

I would prefer to keep Ed and have you stop commenting here. You're just an unabaashed U.S. hater, and nothing about the U.S. or what the U.S. administration does is good in your opinion. Please go away.

[Sarcastr0]

Snowflake want a safe space?

Ed calls for deaths and massacres and rapes as punishment. That you prefer him says a lot about you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ed is a wee bit more nuanced than that.

[grb]

You see yourself as "nuanced" ?!?!

(now that's a hoot!)

[bloocow2]

Hey, while the offer is up, and not being from the U.S., I will gladly register as an Unabashed U.S. Hater.

I used to respect your country as a force for good in the world. Not perfect! Very far from perfect! But generally a force that benefited humanity, despite its flaws.

Right now, though? Under the current administration? You're not a force for good in the slightest. You threaten your allies for no reason, cut lifesaving aid for no reason, and start conflicts over nothing.

And every single promise you make is utterly worthless. You're supposed to be our friend, yet everything you do betrays our trust. China is more reliable! Which is not something that we ever wanted to say, but that's the way it is.

I know you almost certainly do not care what the rest of the world thinks about your country. It's the arrogance of a superpower, after all. But I hope, for everyone's sake, that you will stop your downward spiral and return to something we can take seriously again.

[Sarcastr0]

100% under the current administration we're just terrible. And I cannot blame everyone running to China, who has managed to come out as the steady partner, maybe even one with the moral high ground what with ICE these days.

But I wouldn't be still here if I didn't think we had potential to do good in the future.

[bloocow2]

I hope you do! I hope that the damage isn't permanent.

One thing I will credit your current administration for, though, is showing the rest of the world that we can't rely on America to help us in times of need. That has been genuinely valuable, both in terms of kickstarting our self-sufficiency and forcing us to explore alternative avenues of support. It's not going to be especially great for the world order that America basically created, but I guess we'll just have to let that go?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm glad you finally figured that out, because, frankly, we Americans are getting damned tired of carrying that load.

It wasn't so unreasonable right after WWII, when we were about the only country that hadn't been ruined by the war, and Europe was facing the USSR's army a quick blitzkrieg away.

But, dude, you've had 80 years to recover, and start covering the cost of defending yourselves. Glad to hear you finally woke up to the need to do that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"kickstarting our self-sufficiency "

Oh, when did that happen? I missed it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"maybe even one with the moral high ground "

Amazing. Giving in to your inner Commie I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

China sucks. We're currently sucking more.

We had a lot longer to fall, as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We're currently sucking more."

Delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, a Pinochet fan might like a lot of things that actually suck.

I'm mad at how we're giving away worldwide economic, scientific, and diplomatic leadership to China because I think we have more potential upside than they do.

But right now? China isn't threatening Greenland, nor does it have anything like Minneapolis going on, nor is it fucking with longstanding international markets just for shits and giggles.

We suck real bad right now, Bob. And under the mask of the psycho you wear, I'm pretty sure you know it.

[Jmaie]

I agree that the current administration is doing many bad things, but as to the moral high ground, let me know when we start welding Covid-positive folks’ doors shut.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we were a lot better than China 6 years ago.

Amazing how easy it can be to destroy things.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nor does it have anything like Minneapolis going on"

As I said, just delusional. They don't have anything like Minneapolis going on because they have a police state of 80 years standing, a "social credit" system and no free speech at all.

ICE is a Cub scout troop compared to Chinese security forces. You have completely lost perspective.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, we were a lot better than China 6 years ago."

The fact that you didn't state that in the present tense is enough to indict your judgement. You do realize that they still have slavery in China, right? Not to mention the ongoing Uyghur genocide.

[Sarcastr0]

I've said China sucks.

Just because you and Bob like things that suck doesn't mean the US doesn't also suck.

And there's no question we've become a more malign force in the world than China.

Which sucks, because now everyone is going to align more with China, who sucks.

Capisce?

[Bob from Ohio]

"no question we've become a more malign force in the world than China"

I think there is quite a bit of a question.

China is actually threatening Taiwan, building invasion barges and artificial harbors, sending planes and ships into its sea areas. Its looting minerals in Africa thru unsustainable debt.

Its materially aiding Russia in Ukraine. It arranged for NK to send troops to help Russia.

We put some tariffs on and have law enforcement you don't favor.

[ThePublius]

"And there's no question we've become a more malign force in the world than China."

Are you kidding? Holy shit. So, tell me, how much slavery and other forced labor is there in the U.S.? And, I don't mean what you may figuratively refer to as slavery, but literal slavery.

[Bunny495]

"100% under the current administration we're just terrible. And I cannot blame everyone running to China, who has managed to come out as the steady partner, maybe even one with the moral high ground what with ICE these days."

I have great respect for the idea of "follow the money". China has taken the role America use to play in throwing money around to buy friends or at least rent them. As for China having the high ground you are full of shit about that. Whatever one thinks about ICE they are pansies compared to how China treats illegal aliens. In fact China does not treat even legal aliens as well as America does. Bottom line is the world in general and eurotrash in particular are just unhappy that America cut off their ATM privileges.

[Bob from Ohio]

In fact China does not treat even its citizens as well as America does.

[bloocow2]

Clarify something for me. When you say "most countries would summarily execute him for that", is this something you approve of? To try Gavin Newsom for treason and have him executed?

Heaps of people go to the Davos conferences, by the way. It's not just world leaders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would you have approved of Trump having gone three years ago and proclaiming are than president to be the incompetent moron he is?

When is the last time that a presidential candidate went there, as a presidential candidate, bf=fto attack the current president?

[David Nieporent]

Gavin knew some should be tried for treason and executed.

Are you retarded?

Newsom is over in Switzerland, acting as a US President. Most countries would summarily execute him for that.

Yes, you're retarded.

And what rate does he have to participate in Davos? Why can’t Trump just have his passport revoked?

Because. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[not guilty]

"Retarded" as an epithet is inappropriate, even as to Dr. Ed 2.

It came into use as a euphemism for "moron," "imbecile" and "idiot."

If you mean stupid, say stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Calling Dr. Ed stupid would be a massive insult to stupid people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't worry Dave. We think you are a moron, not stupid.

[David Nieporent]

"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or have you joined the use-inaccurate-personal-pronouns fad?

[Mr. Bumble]

Like you I have the power to speak for others.

[Moderation4ever]

Correct me if I am wrong but DAVOS is not about national government leaders attending. I saw in the paper that Matt Damien is attending. Would you execute him also?

[Mr. Bumble]

Matt Damien? you're so tuned in.

[Bob from Ohio]

I though Ben Affleck was the Devil's son not MATT DAMON

[OpinionsVary]

So Halligan is leaving her job. There's the on-going battle about whether she had said job in the first place but she's now decided to resign. But only days ago, she was filing this bombastic brief to the court, an all by declaration of war against the judge in question.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf

How in the world to you get from filing *that* brief to going 'welp, guess I should be looking for a new job now' in only a few days?

[Sarcastr0]

Wasn’t her term up anyhow? I’m not sure this isn’t. Ore performance.

[Ska]

Somewhat ironic, but not necessarily an ore performance.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit that was brilliant.

[grb]

Ska : "Somewhat ironic, but not necessarily an ore performance."

That's damn good!

[David Nieporent]

How in the world to you get from filing *that* brief to going 'welp, guess I should be looking for a new job now' in only a few days?

Even if she were validly appointed as interim US Attorney, her 120 term would have been up yesterday.

[OpinionsVary]

Sure but the Trump's entire case for her being validly appointed is based on multiple 120 day terms being legal. So why wouldn't they just reappoint her? The AG was signed onto that brief I linked as well. I guess maybe they had to put up a tough face but were internally screaming at her incompetence and took the first face saving measure to get rid of her then?

[Bob from Ohio]

"guess I should be looking for a new job now"

She might like to pay her rent and eat.

[John F. Carr]

There were five names on the brief. Legally, all are responsible for its content. Realistically, she may not have had much input.

[Martinned]

Good point:

Media may not have noticed that Trump’s Board of Peace Charter was drafted so that the US need NOT ratify and become a party.Trump’s current status as US President is a necesary stepping stone but his unitary rule in the new international organisation would be personal, permanent and even hereditary

2/The Board of Peace is a plan of private enrichment for Trump and his family - one of many. If any three states will ratify it and one of them pays a billion dollars, the Charter will enter into force. But the US Senate will never in any composition give its consent by a majority of two thirds

3/I hope foreign ministry lawyers in different countries have analysed the text. Davos may become the end of flattery and pretending that things are normal. The truth must be told and the Mad King dethroned. Applying the 25th Amendment is then domestic business for the US.

[Michael P]

Yes, Democrat partisanship sinks the ability of the US government to achieve much of anything. But you could have extracted that solitary good point by quoting just the one sentence about the Senate never passing this treaty.

[Martinned]

The US hasn't ratified a meaningful treaty in decades. But I am at a loss to understand why you think that's a problem the current Regime is interested in solving.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You are breaking the law by not registering as a foreign agent and targeting lawful government functions with your speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

Possibly because there hasn't been a meaningful treaty in decades?

[Michael P]

That's okay, the Obama and Biden administrations told us that the executive branch can sign the country up anyway.

[Krayt]

Pretty much this, especially with environmental stuff. We're gonna operate as if it were a treaty anyhoodles.

Oh noes! The shoe is now on the other foot. We didn't think of that!

Anyone wanna join me in saying all of it is wrong? Anyone?

"Whataboutism" is a perfectly rational argument, if your conclusion is not "See? We get to do it, too!", but rather "See? Everybody is a power abusive, situational ethicist piece of shit, stop please!"

[Krayt]

Situational Ethics: The high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided-upon conclusion, and the low valuation of it when it gets in the way of another.

[Martinned]

The US hasn't ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to mention just three treaties that have been ratified by almost everyone else, or in the latter case literally everyone else.

[SRG2]

Are you going to defend this Board of Peace charter? It would be most amusing if you did.

[Brett Bellmore]

It doesn't actually SAY hereditary, but I can see where you're coming from. It's at the very least self perpetuating, with essentially all power centralized in this "Chairman" who is, yup, specified to be Donald Trump.

Yeah, stick a fork in him, I think he's done. It's sad, but at least they're not moving Heaven and Earth to conceal it. They're letting it all hang out.

What do you think, does he last to the end of the year?

[ducksalad]

It says the chairman appoints his own successor. There is no other mechanism for picking a chairman in the charter.

Other than leaving out the mere formality of declaring the successor his adopted son, it is exactly hereditary.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"What do you think, does he last to the end of the year?"

This is what you voted for.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I voted for the border being closed and the illegal aliens rounded up and ejected. I voted for the DOJ to start defending the 2nd amendment, and stop defending racial discrimination.

I didn't vote for this any more than Bill Clinton's voters voted for him to blow up pharmaceutical plants in Africa.

We vote for what we want, and get the parts we weren't voting for, too.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

You voted for Trump, you got Trump. When you make friends with the scorpion, don't complain when you get stung.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then own up to intending to blow up wedding parties and pharmaceutical plants, and all the other evils Democratic Presidents have committed.

If he didn't run on it, I didn't vote for it.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump said what he was. Lots of people here pointed to what he said, to Project 2025, and told you what he was.
You didn't believe it.

For some time now he's been what he was always going to be.
You still defended him.

Glad to have you come around, but own some of your own fault in voting for the mad king.

[Bob from Ohio]

"does he last to the end of the year?"

Yes, of course. He might die of course but otherwise nothing is happening.

[Martinned]

Mark Carney continues to be the most effective leader of the international community in the age of Trump. His speech in Davos yesterday.

A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there is another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.

Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.

They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty can also be shared.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/

[Martinned]

Earlier in his speech he discussed Havel's famous Power of the Powerless:

[T]here is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along [with the US Regime], to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.

Well, it won't.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless, and in it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer.

Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: ‘Workers of the world unite’. He doesn't believe it, no-one does, but he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persist – not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this “living within a lie”.

The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack. Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s time to abolish NATO.
Those ingrates will be speaking Russian, but for American blood.

[Martinned]

Even if that were true (and the war in Ukraine suggests that it isn't), how does that benefit the US?

[RedheadedPharoh]

It saves us billions of dollars and the lives of our citizens.

Europeans can go fuck themselves. They are irrelevant. They don't invent, they don't innovate, they don't contribute. They are a dead civilization overrun by foreign hordes. Clinging to an ancient, no longer relevant reputation.

[ThePublius]

Well said! We are witnessing the second large Moslem invasion of Europe, with all of the trappings of an Islamic caliphate. We need to get out of NATO, get out of the U.N., and stop supporting EU countries and the U.K. in every way. We will save an enormous amount of money and preclude the loss of U.S. life and treasure.

[Sarcastr0]

You think we should have stayed out of WW2? WW1? Vietnam?

How far into stupid does your isolationism go?

The UK is an ally. They are not taken over by Muslims, you bigoted twat.

[Mr. Bumble]

If we had stayed out of WWI there probably wouldn't have been a WWII or Vietnam.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If we had stayed out of WWI there probably wouldn't have been a WWII"

Agreed. Both sides were exhausted. US troops enabled the Allies to win a decisive victory which they threw away with a peace which was both too hard on Germany and not hard enough.

Foch nailed it with his 20 year armistice quote.

[Absaroka]

"You think we should have stayed out of ... Vietnam?"

Yes!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I do, too. It's TP's opinion on that that might prove interesting.

[ThePublius]

I think we should have stayed out of Vietnam, too. We were just supporting the re-colonization by France in engaging.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing. I think you outflanked me to the left on that issue.

Vietnam was a terrible idea, but that neo-colonialist take has almost a Zinn vibe.

[John 4]

I think we should stay out of international conflicts. Unless we need some other country’s oil or mineral resources.

[ThePublius]

You know, fuck you, Sarcastr0, with your name calling, your insults. Can't you ever comment without attacking people?

The UK is, indeed, being taken over by muslims. Where have you been?

[Sarcastr0]

You post bigoted false shit, and then cry when it gets called out.

The UK is not taken over by Muslims, quit bathing in NY Post and Powerline, it has rotted your brain.

[Martinned]

The UK is, indeed, being taken over by muslims. Where have you been?

In the UK. How about you?

[LexAquilia]

Tell us your understanding of the 'Amelia' phenomenon that's all the rage in the UK?

[LexAquilia]

I believe he's talking about today and not wanting to time-travel back to the times you mentioned.

Where did you even get that time travel stuff from? lol it's so retarded

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Even if that were true"
It is true, sort of. If not for the efforts of the western Allies, the Soviets likely would not have stopped their western advance until they reached the English Channel and North Sea. As for the Soviets themselves, it's impossible to determine how that would have turned out if not for wartime aid from the other Allies.

[Krayt]

We also gave the Russians a lot of equipment, 2000 railroad engines, 400,000 trucks and jeeps.

The irony that the US's massive production capabilities and supply lines can make a difference.

Lousy pieces of shit giving up on Ukraine.

Lousy.
Pieces.
Of.
Shit.
Giving.
Up.
On.
Ukraine.

The state-owned media in the dictatorship of modern Russia said it best.

"Thanks, Gramps!"

Twice.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"We also gave the Russians a lot of equipment, 2000 railroad engines, 400,000 trucks and jeeps."

Which is why I observed, "As for the Soviets themselves, it's impossible to determine how that would have turned out if not for wartime aid from the other Allies."

Ultimately, was American assistance decisive or would the German failure, and subsequent Soviet counter advance, have occured anyway? Would the Germans have failed as a result of the weather and the Soviet counter offensive, essentially fighting the Germans with dead Soviets?

To get an idea of how ill prepared the Germans were to succeed, just enter "dead German horses in Barbarosa."

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't forget our bombing campaign, destruction of the Luftwaffe, invasions of Italy and France.

These tied up German resources. planes and troops which would otherwise have been sent to stop the Russians.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

By the time that the US entered the war, Germany's defeat was pretty much guaranteed. Germany had neither the necessary forces nor the necessary logistics to stop the Soviets. It's not impossible that the Germans could have survived for quite a while, but, 80% of German military deaths were in the east.

"Don't forget"
I'm forgetting nothing nor am I discounting the contribution of the western Allies.

[OpinionsVary]

Turning back the clock to the Cold War (where the Soviet Union might have had the conventional forces for this)... How do you imagine such an Russian invasion would work? Would the British and French just not use their nuclear weapons for some reason? It's obviously in the US's interest that Russia and Europe don't nuke each other but in your scenario where Russia invades and the US just shrugs, why wouldn't have the two European nuclear powers hit the launch button if the Russians are about to win?

[Frank Drackman]

Tom Clancy described a pretty realistic version in "Red Storm Rising"
NATO wins, Spoiler Alert!

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"obviously in the US's interest that Russia and Europe don't nuke each other"

Why "obviously"? Can't one argue elimination of two rivals at one stroke would be in US interest?.

[OpinionsVary]

The mass scale use of strategic nuclear weapons would effect everyone on Earth. The economic disaster alone would be one of the worst in history and would effect America massively. There's a massive risk that it wouldn't stay limited to Europe (how sure are you that three total war nuclear powers wouldn't lob something at the US in their death throws? What about strikes targeted at Canada and the American territories of European powers?). Nuclear fallout would be carried across large parts of the world. There would be cascading refuge waves. The massive and final rupture of the nuclear taboo. All of this would be a huge negative for the USA that couldn't possible match any marginal great power gain.

[David Nieporent]

Everything you write is true, but also, Europe is not our "rival," but our allies. Eliminating them makes us poorer and weaker.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, I think you are overstating both their capacities and the effects, but sure.

"if the Russians are about to win"

Russia can't beat Ukraine. The Poles would stop them cold.

[OpinionsVary]

I agree modern day Russia clearly lacks the ability to conquer Europe. But that's why my post started with "Turning back the clock to the Cold War (where the Soviet Union might have had the conventional forces for this)"...

And was in response to a hypothetical by Dr. Ed 2 where, without American blood, Russia was taking over Europe.

[David Nieporent]

Why "obviously"? Can't one argue elimination of two rivals at one stroke would be in US interest?.

One could. One could even do it sincerely, if one had been lobotomized.

[Krayt]

You can pay attention to the sketchiest of web sites with things like /pol/. Last year I noted an idea floated several times that if Russia launches a nuke or two, the west or US simply should not respond.

It's clear this kind of idiotic nonsense, pushed by their state troll astroturfing organizations, is still under way.

Bite and swallow it whole, western dictator-fondly-looking manipulated NPC piggies. Bite!

[Martinned]

On the contrary, what you've got there is a big problem in the game theory of nuclear war: once the first strike is launched, it may well not be optimal to launch the second strike. Or, in the jargon of game theory, a country may not be able to credibly commit to a second strike. That's exactly the problem that Dr. Strangelove's doomsday device was designed to solve.

[Michael P]

Those ingrates will be speaking Russian, but for American blood.

Many would not have been born -- their parents would have been killed, in war or in a gulag or as kulaks or through starvation. The lucky ones would have been bred with Russian immigrants instead.

But even Europeans who were born to European heritage stock are apparently too ill-educates to understand that Russia in 2022 did not stand in the same posture as the Soviet Union of 1945. They probably also don't realize how much they depend on US exports of fossil fuels: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=554503 .

[Martinned]

They probably also don't realize how much they depend on US exports of fossil fuels

They do understand that, and they were foolish to replace dependence on one foreign tyrant with another.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/21/trump-us-stranglehold-eu-uk-energy-supply-lng

This is why it is essential for Europe to invest heavily in renewable energy asap.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/14/offshore-windfarm-contracts-to-fuel-homes-great-britain-record-auction

[ThePublius]

Renewables? You fool! Renewables are folly, as Germany and the U.K. and Spain have found out the hard way. Nuclear is the answer. The idiotic Germans not only decommissioned their nuke plants but detroyed them to preclude recommissioning them. Dopes.

[Martinned]

Point:

Trump: "There are windmills all over Europe. There are windmills all over the place. And they are losers. One thing I've noticed is that the more windmills a country has, the more money that country loses, and the worse that country is doing. I haven't been able to find any wind farms in China."

Counterpoint: China has the largest installed wind capacity in the world.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/chinas-solar-and-onshore-wind-capacity-reaches-new-heights-while-offshore-wind-shows-promise/

Why don't you worry about having a senile wannabe-dictator for a president, and leave us to worry about diversifying our energy supply.

[Mr. Hook]

My curiosity is whether the cultists here think Trump was lying about this to a room of people where every single one of them knew he was wrong, or do they think he actually believe that China has no wind farms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An American oil embargo?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is priceless when you realize what Carney has done with China?

Talk about being a hypocrite

[Martinned]

This criticism of the Havel reference seems right to me:

Carney in his Davos speech reference communist dissident Václav Havel, who talked about the Greengrocer who lives within a lie. By putting up the "workers of the world unite"-sign in his window the greengrocer signaled not a belief in worker solidarity, but loyalty to the regime.

Havel pointed out that no one believed in the sign, yet everyone kept putting them up. This is what he called living within a lie. Carney compared that to the rules based international order, who he claimed was also a lie that we needed to pretend to stop believing in.

This comparison does not ring true to me. In Havel's example, the worker of the world unite-signs were put up by people who had no interest in having the workers of the world unite. By contrast, many of us who talk about a rules based order would like it to be true.

Yes, Carney is right that the rules based order has alway been imperfect, but he goes too far in his cynicism. The order did constrain stronger actors and established norms to an extent. And evoking the rules based order helped keep that order alive.

This is fundamentally different from the analogy in Havel were the signs aren't bringing real socialism any closer. Carney is right though in that the order as we once knew it is gone. But like all values, it wasn't imaginary just because it was socially constructed. It existed and it was good.

I see people now quoting Carney and saying "see, the rules based order was always fake, just a tool for US hegemony". Like I said, while the order was imperfect, I don't agree with that description.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I think he was talking about rainbow flags.

Time to take them down.

[ThePublius]

When you quote things could you please provide the attribution?

[Martinned]

I do that only when it matters. In thise case I only put it in blockquotes to show that it wasn't my writing.

Hope that helps.

[Michael P]

The petty tyrant of America's Cap desperately wants to be relevant, but he will not confront Russia or China and their recent patterns of actually "abandon[ing] even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests". He's too busy sending Canadians to the suicide booths. Eurotrash call this being "the most effective leader of the international community", not realizing what an indictment that is.

[Martinned]

Why would Carney want to confront Russia and China when his main problem is with the tyrant on his southern border? His whole optimal strategy, as he explains in this speech, is to manage his risks. And one way to do that is to repair Canada's difficult relations with China.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/01/16/prime-minister-carney-forges-new-strategic-partnership-peoples

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why do you think Canada is embracing China? It's love for the totalitarian rule and oppression of its people?

[OpinionsVary]

It would be the periodic threats from Trump to annex Canada. He had quieted down on the 51-st state bit but with Greenland flaring up, I suspect its just a matter of time until invading Canada is back too. He has been posting map pics showing Canada part of the USA again.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Canada is cozying up to China for self defense and not NATO?

That's quite an admission on the worth and value of NATO.

[jb]

When it's a fellow NATO member threatening to invade you, yeah, NATO doesn't seem like a very useful as a defense pact.

Of course, NATO's decline is basically 100% attributable to Trump, as is Canada's realignment away from the US. This is what happens when you routinely treat allies as if they're enemies.

[LexAquilia]

All of the other countries are abandoning Canada except China because of Trump?
That's a bluesky/reddit tier hot-take for sure. lol

[Brett Bellmore]

China is just world class when it comes to subversion.

[Michael P]

You mean he is sucking up to the world's largest violator of rights, a country now struggling to recover from its monstrous One Child policies, that continues to oppress ethnic and religious minorities including slavery and other forms of forced labor, that controls speech so much that very little of its populace even knows of the 1989 protests in Tienanmen Square, that suppresses liberty and reneges on promises about Hong Kong, and more.

Rather than negotiate with Canada's neighbor and largest trading partner, the carney would rather sell the country out to China.

[Martinned]

China isn't going to invade Canada anytime soon. I'm sure Carney would prefer to have a close relationship with the US, but (as his speech explains) that's not on offer. So his best alternative is to find other countries who will buy Canadian exports.

[Michael P]

Good leaders consider time horizons beyond "soon". For that matter, they at least look at recent past examples of industrial espionage, dumping, and debt traps.

[Martinned]

Good leaders consider time horizons beyond "soon".

You wrote that with a straight face, you Trumpist moron?

[grb]

Ouch!

[Bob from Ohio]

The US isn't going to invade Canada anytime soon either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And one way to do that is to repair Canada's difficult relations with China."

China supports Russia in Ukraine so Canada will be indirectly subsidizing Russia. What a genius!

[Martinned]

You take the US Regime you have, not the US Regime you'd like to have.

[Bob from Ohio]

You'll miss us when we're gone. We won't miss you.

[Martinned]

You're already gone.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, then stop whining.

Good luck with Ukraine. Endless war it will be I guess.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, you made me laugh = Mark Carney continues to be the most effective leader of the international community...

What a dolt.

[Martinned]

One of the problems of having your head that far up Trump's ass is that you wouldn't recognise a good leader if you crashed into one.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What outcomes has hos great leadership produced that you're using in your judgment?

[Josh R]

What did he get wrong?

The US is abandoning the world order (collective security and relatively open markets) that gave us peace and prosperity since WWII. It is understandable that other countries will arm themselves and seek new trading partners, even those from authoritarian regimes such as China.

The end result, a world that looks much more like it did throughout history prior to WWII. One of factions with great powers exercising their will. Hello to war and reduced global economic prosperity.

Worst of all, most in the GOP know this to be the case. Will Lindsey Graham finally speak up? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio! Are they so beholden to their political futures they will see the world order destroyed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"peace and prosperity since WWII"

We apparently had no peace or prosperity before that date.

The Euros at Davos are showing they don't value the peace and prosperity, they'd rather beat their chests to show how tough they are.

[Josh R]

We had much less. The world had much less.

The Euros at Davos are reacting in a rational way to Trump blowing up the world order. The latter is the cause.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are acting like spurned teenage girls.

[Bob from Ohio]

"increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure"

Pray tell how little Canada does that?

Has Carney looked a map of North America recently? Comparable population figures? The total number of Defense personnel and military capacity? Who buys Canadian made cars?

If Carney wants Canada to be treated like we treat Mexico, ok. Dumb but its on him.

[Martinned]

I don't know what you've been smoking, but Canada is already being treated like Mexico. But, like the man said, you get what you sow.

Case in point:

2024: As a favour to Biden, Canada puts 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, so that Canadians will buy Teslas instead.

2026: Canada drops its tariffs on Chinese EVs to 5%, dooming Tesla's chances of selling cars north of the border for the foreseeable future.

It's almost as if behaving like a bully has consequences...

[Bob from Ohio]

"Canada is already being treated like Mexico

Not yet. Cozying up to China is a choice though.

[Sarcastr0]

The whole fucking point is we made it not a choice. We're forcing countries into it, by being economic mafia shitlords.

You play a simplistic transactional person, and a simplistic moral scold.
You can't play both at the same time, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We're forcing countries into it,"

Still a choice. A few 51st state jokes and some small tariffs don't really threaten Canada.

Carney is beating his chest for domestic political purposes, which is fine by me, but I don't have to pretend we are a true threat.

[Bunny495]

"Canada drops its tariffs on Chinese EVs to 5%, dooming Tesla's chances of selling cars north of the border for the foreseeable future."

Do you realize Tesla ships Teslas made in China to Canada.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so today begins year two of Trump 47.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Only 3 more years until Trump 48!

[Moderation4ever]

Will he make it through the year? Noticeable decrease in physical and mental health. I did not think Joe Biden could do another four and I don't think Donald Trump can do it either. Too old, the both of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet the "obese" orange man with terrible dietary choices is more cogent and (probably) active than you.

[Martinned]

Yes, cogent, definitely. The guy who forgets whether he's trying to conquer Greenland or Iceland, and rambles endlessly about god knows what.

"Cogent" isn't a word that any sane person has ever applied to Trump. Not even 10 years ago when his senility wasn't as far advanced.

[Moderation4ever]

I not sure what you mean by active? Could I sit in a golf cart and ride 18 holes, watch some TV, eat junk food. I think I could handle that. It is winter in Wisconsin so most of my activity is in the gym, I go most days for a little over and hour. President Trump can join me if he thinks he can keep up. We can discuss what books we are reading.

[Commenter_XY]

Will Bill and Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for contempt of congress?
Answer: Yes

[Martinned]

They are enemies of the Regime, so they will be prosecuted regardless.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s more a matter of precedent and other enemies of a different regime being prosecuted.

[Michael P]

They are washed-up, washed-out has-beens. All they had to do was allow truth and reconciliation to proceed, in the interests of good government and accountability -- but they have never been in favor of those goals. Well, now they may finally experience some accountability.

[Martinned]

Sure, "accountability"... /s

[Sarcastr0]

Those files sure haven’t been release yet.

Commenter used to talk about those files. Not so much anymore.

Instead he’s here wallowing in what is another distraction for the MAGA rubes.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes. People are again taking notice that getting the files is dragged out. Not sure that is a good thing for anybody. I noted that the Wall Street Journal, the WSJ no less, ran a story in December about the Mar a Lago pipeline as recruits for Jeffery Epstein. Might be better to get the story out rather than drips and drabs.

[Moderation4ever]

No problem with this. I love to see the Epstein story back on the front pages again. Question is who going to be on trial Bill and Hillary or maybe it will end up being that Trump is the real defendant.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we all remember the picture of Trump in a blue dress at Epstein's pad.

[not guilty]

Will Bill and Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for contempt of congress?
Answer: Yes

They may well be prosecuted, provided that Jeanine Pirro can persuade a District of Columbia grand jury to indict. Civil disobedience is always an option for someone who is willing to accept the consequences thereof.

The Clintons are pursuing a high risk strategy here. They can now litigate the validity of the Congressional subpoenas prior to trial. Since the obligation to stand trial at all would be at issue, an interlocutory appeal from an order overruling a motion to dismiss may be available pursuant to the collateral order doctrine Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (1989).

The wiser course may have been to appear in response to the subpoenas, be sworn in, and tell the Committee members to fuck themselves as to particular questions. That would require the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a D.C. jury that each "question [was] pertinent to the question under inquiry" pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 192. See, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 208 (1957).

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"They may well be prosecuted, provided that Jeanine Pirro can persuade a District of Columbia grand jury to indict."

First, if I understand correctly, the committee must vote to hold them in contempt and then the House must vote to refer it to the DoJ. Is that correct, or do I have it wrong?

If a referal from the House is necessary, how likely is it?

[John F. Carr]

ABC reports:

The contempt resolution is expected to advance out of the committee Wednesday afternoon -- teeing up a full vote on the House floor days later. The timing of floor consideration won't become clear until after the committee markup.
If Democrats oppose the floor vote, Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose just two Republican votes before a third GOP defector could upset passage.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-committee-set-approve-resolutions-holding-clintons-contempt/story?id=129381902

[not guilty]

"First, if I understand correctly, the committee must vote to hold them in contempt and then the House must vote to refer it to the DoJ. Is that correct, or do I have it wrong?"

The ordinary course of events is what you describe: a committee vote followed by a House vote to refer the matter to the DOJ. But since 2 U.S.C. § 192 defines a criminal offense irrespective of whether the House acts, the referral is not a prerequisite.

Actually I misspoke about the grand jury. Since the offense is a misdemeanor, it could be charged by a warrant without grand jury action.

[Bob from Ohio]

"warrant"

The expert speaks!

Even I know the charging document is called an "information".

[Moderation4ever]

Is it really high risk? The fact is the Trump DOJ is not doing too well with its prosecutions of Trump's enemies. Further it will be hard to prosecute the Clintons without raising Trump's involvement with his good friend Jeffery Epstein. Finally a number of the Congress people charging the Clintons refused subpoenas themselves. That will come out in the wash. I think testifying would be best but the route the Clintons are taking might be more fun.

[Malika la Maize]

Duke University sued quarterback Darian Mensah on Tuesday, and a judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have prevented him from entering the transfer portal.

Darren Heitner, Mensah's attorney, told ESPN that Durham County (North Carolina) Superior Court Judge Michael O'Foghludha ruled from the bench Tuesday, pending a written ruling, and denied Duke's request that Mensah be enjoined from entering the transfer portal

Heitner said Duke is expected to enter Mensah into the transfer portal Wednesday.
"The judge, a Duke basketball season-ticket holder, and thus a booster, also recused himself from future proceedings," Heitner said.

As a result, a different judge, Ed Wilson, will rule on Duke's request for relief that would prevent Mensah from enrolling at another school, playing at another school and licensing his name, image and likeness to another school.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47673543/duke-sues-darian-mensah-tries-stop-transfer-portal-entry

[RedheadedPharoh]

Sec. Bessent said at WEF that Europe was financing the war against itself by continuing to buy Russian oil and gas.

How is that not an indictment of how utterly failed and bad Leftist ideology is and the existential harm Europe now faces?

What sort of ideology sabotages a whole society and makes it beholden to foreign invaders for basic sustenance? The globalist model has failed.

[jb]

So you're saying it's bad that Europe uses a bunch of fossil fuels that they generally don't produce themselves?

Not sure what you think that has to do with being Leftist, though.

[Bored Lawyer]

For starters, Germany killed its nuclear power program, based on leftist pressure. What replaced that energy? Russian gas.

[LexAquilia]

I think he's saying it's bad to buy critical supplies from a nation you believe you are at war with, as you're just financing your own destruction.

You know, a straight interpretation of the words used by RP and not your strawman?

[jb]

I'm just quite confused with what it has to do with being leftist.

FWIW, I agree with Bored Lawyer that Germany phasing out its nuclear program was really dumb. But many people on the left agree with that, even if its true that leftists were also the one pushing for it. More to the point, other left-leaning countries did not do the same thing so it's hard to chalk up to a general trend in Europe or a left-leaning trend.

RHPs observation is actually a pretty strong argument in favor of renewables and nuclear in terms of the European energy mix, though. It seems like if environmentalists generally had been more successful in driving down Europe's carbon footprint, there would be a lot less dependence on Russia (or the US).

[David Nieporent]

More to the point, other left-leaning countries did not do the same thing so it's hard to chalk up to a general trend in Europe or a left-leaning trend.

Moreover, Angela Merkel — not a left-wing politician — led the charge in Germany to end the use of nuclear power.

[Malika la Maize]

On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to cut Americans' energy bills in half — cheaper gasoline, cheaper electricity. He also said he'd "unleash" American energy production, often repeating the catchphrase "Drill, baby, drill."

One year in, the price of gasoline is down about 20%. But the U.S. oil industry is definitely not drilling, baby, drilling. The price of oil is just too low to justify more of it — although within the last year companies have won major lobbying victories that soothe that sting. Meanwhile, electricity costs are rising, and expected to rise more.

Electricity prices have been increasing for years now, and 2025 was more of the same.
"Across most states and in most markets, what we see is that prices have gone up," says Helen Kou, an analyst with BloombergNEF.

Based on trends in wholesale power markets — where your local electric company buys its power, an expense they pass on to you — that's likely to continue. Kou said that in New York and New England, wholesale prices are up more than 60%, and in the mid-Atlantic they're up 45%.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/20/nx-s1-5670378/trump-energy-promises-one-year

[Brett Bellmore]

"Meanwhile, electricity costs are rising, and expected to rise more."

It's going to take a while to undo the effects of widespread forced adoption of "renewable energy". Even if you totally blew away the regulatory obstacles to building more reliable powerplants, doing so takes both time, and capital being confident that they won't be restored in mid-build.

[hobie]

It appears China has some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. And their rates are half those of the US.

[rubbing chin] I wonder why that is?

[Mr. Bumble]

They get most of their power from coal.

[jb]

According to Brett above, the reason US electricity is expensive is because of renewables, but China gets more of its electricity from renewables than the US does.

[ThePublius]

That's not so. While China gets about 8% of its electricity from 12% from solar and about 9% from wind, the U.S. gets 8.5% and 11%, respectively. At the same time, China gets 60%+ from coal. So the proportions of electricity from "renewables," not counting hydro, are about the same.

[hobie]

"In 2023, China's total installed electric generation capacity was 2.92 TW,[4] of which 1.26 TW was renewable, including 376 GW from wind power and 425 GW from solar power.[3] As of 2023, the total power generation capacity for renewable energy sources in China is at 53.9%.[5] The rest was mostly coal capacity, with 1040 GW in 2019.[6]"

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

[ThePublius]

Well, I guess it depends on what source you consult.

[John 4]

Did you consult a source?

[Brett Bellmore]

Most of that consists of hydroelectric. I don't know anybody on the right who's hostile to hydro, it is at least reliable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lately the TVA has been hostile to hydro causing problems in its service area.

[LexAquilia]

The TVA is hostile to people's pocketbooks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The advantage to Hydro is that it’s instant on.
You still have to take power off the grid to energize the fields in the turbines, but beyond that, it’s instant on. Compare this to an oil, gas coal or even nuke plant where you have to build up steam.

[jb]

First, it's not correct that it's "most" even though hydro is the largest component of the renewables mix. And China is installing more solar and wind capacity much faster than anything else, so the total will continue to move in that direction quite quickly.

But even if you don't want to accept that China uses more renewables than the US, and (as with ThePublius's data) think it's basically similar to the mix in the US, it seems to argue pretty strongly against your thesis that the reason US electricity is more expensive is because of renewables because China has just as much if not more.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, the problem with your statistics is that either every kilowatt of renewable electricity has to be shored up by a kilowatt of fossil fuel, electricity, and/or it has to be acceptable to have random wide area blackouts immediately upon the loss of any renewable electricity.

In other words, a cloud goes in front of the solar cells for 10 minutes. You either have to have a fossil fuel plant ready to step in and grab that load, or you have to shed it. The latter involves unannounced blackouts, as was the situation in California 20 years ago.

Why might I suspect that the Chinese have a more nonchalant attitude towards shedding load?

[hobie]

Because China, unlike us, backed up their solar/wind with gigantic battery banks. We either don't have the will or the means to do the same I suppose.

[Bunny495]

"In 2023, China's total installed electric generation capacity"

I am calling bullshit on this. While capacity is important delivery is more important. A big part of China's wind generating capacity is located in the Gobi Desert and (if you believe the official Chinese story) at least 5% of the capacity is never used due to delivery issues (some estimates are 10% or higher).

Truth be told both China and America have big problems delivering electricity, particularly green energy electricity due to the users not being close enough to where the energy is produced.

[Kazinski]

Those numbers are measuring nameplate capacity, not production.

Wind typically produces 33% of nameplate capacity, solar is less at 20-25%.

And where gas and coal can be geared up to very close to nameplate capacity on demand, wind and solar are dependent on a very random weather system for reaching capacity.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in the case of very high winds have to be shut down (wind mills that is).

[Martinned]

Since it has been alleged that my criticisms of Elon Musk have been based on his politics, it seems worth passing on an update on his spat with Michael O'Leary. I have had my fair share of (professional) disagreements with him over the years, but there is no question that he knows a lot about how to operate an airline, and is genuinely someone who revolutionised air travel after taking over at Ryanair.

Last week, after German airline Lufthansa announced it would install Starlink on its planes to provide all passengers with free wi-fi, O'Leary said Musk knew "zero" about flight aerodynamics.

He told Irish radio station Newstalk that passengers would not want to pay a small charge for wi-fi on an hour-long flight, and that Starlink hardware would increase fuel costs because of drag.

"We [would] have to put an aerial antenna on top of the aircraft. It would cost us about $200-250m a year, in other words about an extra dollar for every passenger we fly.

"We can't afford those costs. Passengers won't pay for internet usage... so we're not putting it on board."

O'Leary called Musk an "idiot", with Musk using the same insult in response.

Airlines have become increasingly important for Starlink, a network powered by thousands of low-earth orbit satellites.

The technology is already being rolled out by airlines such as Qatar Airways and United Airlines.

Both Musk and O'Leary have been known to court media attention with provocative public statements.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgyzl4gd1do

[Michael P]

Clearly, the guy who owns the most successful rocket-launching entity in the world knows "zero" about flight aerodynamics. /s

O'Leary is probably right that Europeans are too poor and too cheap to pay for Internet access while in the air, and Musk is probably right that Europe would be much better off if Europeans were able and willing to pay for it.

[Martinned]

Clearly, the guy who owns the most successful rocket-launching entity in the world knows "zero" about flight aerodynamics.

I have a couple of questions about that sentence, but let's stick with the observation that "owning" something means fuck all about someone's knowledge about the business.

[Michael P]

The fact that you believe that says an awful lot about your home continent.

[Brett Bellmore]

An extra dollar per flight would be a rounding error, people could hardly notice it. And the last time I flew, they were selling internet access, it was a profit center. So much for people not being willing to pay for it.

[Martinned]

An extra dollar per flight would be a rounding error, people could hardly notice it.

Clearly you've never flown Ryanair. I gather the US domestic air travel industry has consolidated to the point of lunacy, but I didn't realise even an airline like Southwest - which is basically the closest US equivalent to Ryanair - is putting the squeeze on consumers instead of on its costs. Maybe you guys should look into enforcing your antitrust laws.

(Which is how I - very indirectly - had something to do with O'Leary and Ryanair. They were trying to monopolise UK-Ireland air travel by acquiring Aer Lingus.)

[Absaroka]

Your quoted material differs from the linked page; maybe BBC edited it or something.

In any event, from the quoted material I'm not sure who is saying antennas are an aerodynamic no-no. But modern planes have had aerials, including satcom aerials, for a long time. You just put them under a fairing. It's hard to imagine that an airline owner or Musk doesn't know that.

[Michael P]

You just put them under a fairing. It's hard to imagine that an airline owner or Musk doesn't know that.

I expect that O'Leary was assuming -- probably accurately, for his fleet -- that the fuselages don't have available recesses for sky-facing antennas, and so they would need to mount on the surface and thus impact aerodynamics.

I don't know the economics well enough to guess whether the fuel costs or the subscription costs would be bigger -- but I do note that US non-budget airlines like United and American (and Lutfthansa in the quoted text) seem to be going in the direction of providing at least a basic tier of in-flight Internet as part of the basic ticket cost. Ryanair is chasing a rather different kind of customer.

[Absaroka]

"probably accurately, for his fleet -- that the fuselages don't have available recesses for sky-facing antennas, and so they would need to mount on the surface and thus impact aerodynamics"

They don't need to be flush mounted to have acceptable aerodynamics. Notice, for example, the satcom antennas on 737's and 787's pictured here.

[Michael P]

I understand that some guy named Michael O'Leary doesn't think the aerodynamics are acceptable, at least for his fleet, which is mostly newer B737s.

[Bwaaah]

O'Leary is probably referring to 737s.

And Martinned is doing an ass skid across the living room rug.

[Life of Brian]

I'm honestly torn between major kudos for one of the best burns I've seen in a while, and pouring bleach into my eyes trying to unsee it. I'll start with the kudos and go from there.

[Bwaaah]

I like to think I didn't write some of the stuff I wrote. It doesn't help when on read-back, it feels tactile. (or a touch olfactory)

Absaroka's link above about antennas on Boeing planes is very helpful context.

Mr. Engineer Martinned: "Idiot Musk OBVIOUSLY doesn't understand aerodynamics. Are you kidding me? Antennas on planes? THINK ABOUT IT."

Martinned said something days ago that led me to believe that he works in government as a regulator (of "mergers"?). Imagine the insightful competence he and his fellow geniuses brings to industry. He was born to be an overlord. Never doubted himself for a moment.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I was missing the full, glorious context since I muted him some time back (after he doubled down on spamming the board with 20+ page long cut-and paste articles, so really just a defensive mute -- might try turning him back on if he's given that up). But it was clear from the texture of the replies that it was a whopper.

[Bwaaah]

But on a related note...have you ever owned a dog who had some kind of butt-scratching need? Have you ever seen the move, seemingly from a sitting position, where the dog's rear legs straddle the front legs as the dog's front legs pull the dog's butt across the floor?

That's not my whole point, which is this... Have you ever had your dog do that in the living room while you have guests over?

It's still humbling for me to recount that event. In just moments, all eyes turn to something that's hard to describe. God forbid there's a little kid in the room, he's likely to say something like, "What is that dog doing, Daddy?"

Look away. Look away from Martinned as he skids across the floor. Let this moment slide into the past. Avert your eyes.

[Martinned]

who is saying antennas are an aerodynamic no-no

Michael O'Leary is, at least for his airline. His entire point is that the costs and benefits of doing a deal with Starlink are different for his airline than for others, who do more long-haul and are in a higher price segment. In response, Musk called him an idiot.

[John F. Carr]

The cost sounds high. I believe Starlink can use flat panel phased array antennas.

I don't know what the cost of a government-certified fairing is.

[Brett Bellmore]

They do indeed use flat panel phased array antennas, and could potentially use conformal phased array antennas, if that was thought cost effective.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, the technical objections seem weak and fairly straightforward to overcome. Planes already have conformal antennas all over them for various systems.

Starlink is great. The one real objection is that one guy could just decide to cut off your access. That's true of any commercial system, and I think Musk is enough of a businessman to prioritize customer service over political spite. But still if there was a good competing option I'd prefer to buy from someone with a lower political profile and a lower reputation for impulsiveness.

[John F. Carr]

Unfortunately there is a high barrier to entry because of the large number of satellites needed in low earth orbit.

Amazon is launching a competing service.

[Bwaaah]

Oh god. Is that a broadening market for satellite services, or a Bezos v. Musk celebrity death match?

Celebrity death match, I'm sure. The crowd will roar when the orange guy, unexpectedly, enters the stadium. What's he want? What will he do? What will be his take?

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't mind the existence of actual competition, either, I hate systems with single failure points.

But part of Musk's political profile is due to the fact that he resisted pressure to join the consensus censorship regime. He's not at all fond of censorship, as a general matter.

Granted, he's not big on you broadcasting his real time location to potential assassins, that he'll censor without hesitation.

[David Nieporent]

But part of Musk's political profile is due to the fact that he resisted pressure to join the consensus censorship regime. He's not at all fond of censorship, as a general matter.

He is entirely fond of censorship. You were fooled. He just didn't like his side being censored.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say he didn't censor at all. I said that he resisted pressure to join the IT community's consensus censorship regime, and he didn't generally favor censorship. He's not strictly principled about it, alas.

Having a variety of outlets that censor differently is almost as good as having an outlet that simply doesn't censor; What one outlet will block, another will let by. That's why it's so important that there was at least one major platform that opted out of the consensus censorship regime, and that's why he's hated:

He rendered it ineffective.

[jb]

I actually agree with you that it's good to have major platforms with different ideological tilts, even if the tilts in the case of the other big platforms are less deliberate than X's.

Musk's big problem here is that he pretended that he was going to be a free speech absolutist but actually just replaced one set of ideological biases for another, which made him kind of a clown.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "He is entirely fond of censorship."

That's simplistic enough to be a non-distinguishing point, unless there's a major player you think isn't "entirely fond of censorship." They call it "content moderation," don't they? I think that's a core, energetic function for them all. It addresses each ones concerns and predilections, doesn't it?

Do you have preferences for one enterprise's censorship over another? Or are you just reiterating your sentiment that Musk is a turd, and the enterprise of censorship gets smited as well?

[Martinned]

I think Musk is enough of a businessman to prioritize customer service over political spite

I don't know why you would think that.

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown-starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/

During a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022, Elon Musk gave an order that disrupted the counteroffensive and dented Kyiv’s trust in Starlink, the satellite internet service the billionaire provided early in the war to help Ukraine’s military maintain battlefield connectivity.

According to three people familiar with the command, Musk told a senior engineer at the California offices of SpaceX, the Musk venture that controls Starlink, to cut coverage in areas including Kherson, a strategic region north of the Black Sea that Ukraine was trying to reclaim.
(...)
Upon Musk’s order, Ukrainian troops suddenly faced a communications blackout, according to a Ukrainian military official, an advisor to the armed forces, and two others who experienced Starlink failure near the front lines. Soldiers panicked, drones surveilling Russian forces went dark, and long-range artillery units, reliant on Starlink to aim their fire, struggled to hit targets.

As a result, the Ukrainian military official and the military advisor said, troops failed to surround a Russian position in the town of Beryslav, east of Kherson, the administrative center of the region of the same name. “The encirclement stalled entirely,” said the military official in an interview. “It failed.”

Ultimately, Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeded in reclaiming Beryslav, the city of Kherson and some additional territory Russia had occupied. But Musk’s order, which hasn’t previously been reported, is the first known instance of the billionaire actively shutting off Starlink coverage over a battlefield during the conflict. The decision shocked some Starlink employees and effectively reshaped the front line of the fighting, enabling Musk to take “the outcome of a war into his own hands,” another one of the three people said.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for the link. From a purely self-centered buyer point of view I think the risk of him targeting me, or any demographic group that includes me, is pretty low.

An Irish airline is bit higher profile, I suppose they or the Irish government could do something to piss him off.

[Bunny495]

Not sure where you are getting your intel from but there is more to the story. Starlink has what is termed geofencing and Musk claimed shutdowns in geofenced areas were done so the Russians could not used Starlink in general and in particular on Starlink terminals the Russians had captured from Ukraine. It is a tall order to keep up with the exact front line and Russia was definitely advancing into Ukraine. Point is Musk's decisions to help Ukraine with communications did way more good than harm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What’s happened elsewhere is gonna happen here, airlines are gonna find it cheaper to have an active connection to the Internet to do something that they currently aren’t using the Internet to do. I’m wondering how much of the communication between ground control and the airplane could be removed from analog verbal radio and pushed into digital data that is transmitted by star link.

[ducksalad]

They're always going to want a direct link from the plane to the tower/local area ground control for reasons of latency and resistance to network-based attacks. At least as a backup.

[jb]

This entire conversation seems pretty dumb since it's not hypothetical. Actual airlines with planes flying through the air are installing Starlink on their planes, e.g. United has put it on ~250 planes already. But beyond Starlink, MANY (most?) carriers have had some form of satellite or terrestrial WiFI (with required antennae) for decades, so it's not like there's anything particularly novel going on with these Starlink deployments.

All of the following things are probably true:

1) Adding WiFi to planes increases fuel costs, both because of increased drag and increased weight. But it's a sufficiently low cost that many carriers (including United's Starlink offering) are providing WiFi for free at this point.
2) Ryanair has a business model and customer base that makes installing WiFi not worth it.
3) For most other airlines, the customer mix provides a strong business case for onboard WiFi.
4) Using this as an example of whether Musk is smart or not is...not smart.

[Moderation4ever]

Reading in my morning newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that Usha and JD Vance are expecting a baby in July. Congratulations to them and their family.

[John F. Carr]

A report said she is the first Second Lady to be pregnant.

[Bob from Ohio]

I think Hannibal Hamlin's wife had a child in 1862.

[ThePublius]

Good point. It was Frank who was born in 1862.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. And Schuyler Colfax's wife had a child in 1870.

[John F. Carr]

The article I read today added "modern" and listed a few 19th century births.

[Moderation4ever]

I have another candidate for stupid gun owner of the week. Read in my newspaper that a Madison man was ticketed for discharging his gun while cleaning the weapon. Bullet traveled into an adjoining apartment. Wondering why people get so worried about crime when your idiot neighbor could shoot you accidentally.

[Frank Drackman]

Because way more people are murdered by criminals with guns than by negligent neighbors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And criminals without guns, for that matter.

[Moderation4ever]

Frank, the thing is that when I read about people being shot or killed in the newspaper, it is usually about people that know each other. A fight that goes wrong, spouse kills spouse, or drug deal goes wrong. All situations that that I can generally avoid. I can not avoid situation like a neighbor who stupid enough to leave a round in the chamber when he cleans his gun. Or can I avoid some alcoholic, and six OWIs likely means alcoholic, who on the road at the same time as me.

[Moderation4ever]

Final newspaper story from today. Read not one but two stories of car crashes where the drivers were OWI. One for sixth OWI. Fortunately no one was injured. Again people worry about crime when some drunk fool could kill you with their car.

[Frank Drackman]

Well people obviously need to stop Orgasming While Intoxicated.

[ThePublius]

You have posted two such falacious analogies today. Worried about crime while when your neighbor could shoot you accidentally, worried about crime when some drunk fool could kill you. It implies you think that people can only worry about one thing at a time, and that the OWI driver and crime are somehow equivalent, in magnitude and risk.

You are being completely illogical to make some as yet undiscovered point.

[Michael P]

It feels like just the other week that we were talking about this very topic, and pointing out that the US has made huge progress against drunk driving over the last three or four decades -- in large part because organizations like MADD organized to push for better enforcement and more stigma against it.

Similar movements in opposition to a culture of crime and casual violence are sadly missing, with the likely participants instead focusing on political distractions and tilting at windmills -- and criticizing others for decrying that culture or calling for enforcement of existing laws.

[ThePublius]

I honestly don't know where you're coming from, Michael. I see that a lot of the problem with urban crime is the refusal of urban DAs and others to prosecute it, as it will be perceived as racist, or somehow disporportionate to BIPOCs. Yes, Soros DAs, but this has been a trend for the last 50 years. No cash bail, criminals released before the arresting cop is even done with the paperwork. Decriminalization of many crimes like shoplifting, fare jumping. Even refusing to prosecute violent criminals, like nuts randomly striking innocent people on the streets.

Our country's big cities are in distress, with no indication they will get better anytime soon.

When walking about in cities be sober, don't smoke, be aware of your 'situation,' i.e., surroundings, and be armed. The police and the state are not out to help you; and remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Michael P]

We had MADD, and it made substantial progress in its cause. We didn't have Mothers Against Thug Life; instead, we got aspirationally million-person marches on DC demanding handouts or infringement of Second Amendment rights. When someone calls for prosecuting crime or for not undercharging it, or even criticizes the culture that prizes crime and indulgence over cooperation and diligence, they get called a racist.

[Life of Brian]

We didn't have Mothers Against Thug Life

Indeed, we went exactly the opposite direction and glorified it through hardcore rap culture. Right in the same time frame, even.

[hobie]

Don't you hate it when soft-on-crime types release violent felons with just a pardon on the wrist?

[ThePublius]

Whataboutism. Hobie's refuge.

[hobie]

Don't you hate it when soft-on-crime types release violent felons with just a pardon on the wrist?

[ducksalad]

When walking about in cities be sober, don't smoke, be aware of your 'situation,' i.e., surroundings, and be armed.

When walking about in cities (as a tourist) enjoy the bars and entertainments, maybe a cheroot if you're into that, and relax. If you see ThePublius looking all tactical have a laugh about it with your friends once he's looking in the other direction. Or if you're feeling kindly invite him over to your table and offer him a Virgin Bloody Mary but don't ask why he's wearing a sports coat in the middle of summer.

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of the conservatives posters here seem terrified by cities.

Or, honestly, the outdoors in general.

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, doesn't usually occur to me to conflate the outdoors in general with cities. "The outdoors" is usually contrasted with cities, not meant to include them.

I'm not terribly fond of cities, myself. They don't scare me, you're safe enough in them if you take care about which parts of them you venture into, but they're not very appealing to my tastes.

I love hiking in the mountains, though. I suppose some people would find that scary, knowing that there were actually bears wandering around out there, too.

[Sarcastr0]

I like camping and canoeing as well - I'm an Eagle Scout and did plenty of summers in the Adirondacks growing up. Learned to do a wetwood fire, the works.

Not the *wilderness* but leaving the house where there might be strangers.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I love hiking in the mountains, though. I suppose some people would find that scary, knowing that there were actually bears wandering around out there, too."

Black bears, though potentially dangerous, don't pose much danger in practice. Even in those parts of Tennessee where black bears are encountered frequently (Gatlinburg, for example), bear attacks are very rare. You are much more likely to die in a school shooting than you are to be eaten by a black bear. Just don't antagonize them or feed them cocaine.

I just looked it up. If you are out hiking, you are more likely to be killed by a hunter than you are by a bear. Or maybe not, depending.
But it is true that more people die being shot by hunters than do from black bear attacks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or get between a momma bear and her cubs, of course. A friend of mine had that happen while biking, and was quite fortunate that his bike was faster than the bear.

I'm not saying it's a great danger, just cited as a reason some people might be unreasonably afraid of the wilderness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...quite fortunate that his bike was faster than the bear his buddy's bike."

There you go.

[ducksalad]

Bear attack vs school shootings

To avoid the school shooter I just have to stay out of schools. The bears cover the entire Rockies, Appalachians, Pacific Coast Ranges, and a bunch of other spots too.

School shooters don't rip the flesh from your bones while you're still alive and then finish you off by crushing your upper vertebrae.

Also, in the outdoors, there is a risk of being shot by a sitting VPOTUS. It has happened twice.

[Martinned]

Soros DAs

Woof, woof!

[David Nieporent]

and tilting at windmills

Ironically, this literally describes Donald Trump.

Trump suffers major losses in his war on offshore wind
The administration’s arguments that offshore wind farms present a national security risk failed to convince judges in three separate courts.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/18/trump-offshore-wind-problems-00734850

[Michael P]

Which word don't you know the meaning of, "literally" or "tilting [at]"?

[Bwaaah]

A Japanese Student wouldn't make that mistake. Krayt literally explained this yesterday. DMN takes the hit, figuratively.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The administration’s arguments that offshore wind farms present a national security risk failed to convince judges in three separate courts."
...and we all know that judges are chosen for their expertise on issues of national security.

[David Nieporent]

...and we all know that judges are chosen for their expertise on issues of national security.

Well, we all know that Trump wasn't.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mouse in your pocket?

[Bwaaah]

Interesting. He seems to only be able to spot mice in other people's pockets.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Mouse in your pocket?"

Well, here are two things "we" (as in every non-lying, non-delusional, non-hackish person acquainted with the facts) know :

1. On the subject of windmills, Trump's mental illness and cognitive decay are blatant and obvious. He is (literally!) unable to speak like a rational adult human on the subject. He makes a grotesque fool of himself every time the topic comes up.

2. On the subject of windmills and national security : (Literally!) every administration before Trump has looked at it and found no significant problem.

So it's (literally!) as easy as 1-2-3 to work this out. Either you believe the loony-toons headcase so traumatized by windmills they reduce him to incoherent babble is a loony-toons freak here as well......

...... Or you believe the loony-toons headcase so traumatized by windmills they reduce him to incoherent babble somehow uncovered a "national security threat" no one had ever noticed before.

A judge facing that choice must literally believe it's the easiest call he'll ever make.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do driving in snow.
https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/major-winter-storm-pileup-interstate-196-michigan

[John F. Carr]

In the USA traffic deaths exceed homicides and homicides exceed traffic deaths caused by drunk drivers.

Drunks get headlines, especially in these days when reporters can air a BAC percentage. Americans love numbers. Things we can measure must be important.

Worry about that truck behind you as you step into the crosswalk. Maybe the driver is going to turn right and didn't notice you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a person who has driven trucks, I’d worry about a whole lot more than just the driver seeing you. Air brakes have to be adjusted manually and it’s not on common half of them on a truck not to work or be disconnected. Steering is questionable and tires that come apart or also for the course as are a lot of other things.

[Michael P]

Based on the conduct described at https://www.newsweek.com/mamdani-china-communist-party-democratic-socialists-11370804, Mercedes Marxist Zohran Mamdani's CPUSA (or nominally DSA) buddies are taking requests from the Communist Party of China about what to say and what not to talk about, with the apparent intent to defeat the measures of the United States to contain Chinese influence.

The first part of this runs afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, unless any of those US persons have taken the uncharacteristically honest step of registering as Chinese agents, and the second part runs afoul of the Logan Act. To which I say: They will likely need better lawyers than can be found in the comments section of this blog.

[John F. Carr]

I am sure if there is anything to this, and possibly if there isn't, Trump's DoJ will be on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not shocking, they're probably dependent on foreign funding, the same way the CPUSA was.

Wouldn't worry about the Logan act, though; It has been used twice that I can think of, and never, EVER seen a completed trial, because everybody understands that it's grossly unconstitutional. The only thing preserving it is that it never gets used, and so never generates test cases.

[David Nieporent]

Everybody does not understand that, because that's not sensible. The Logan Act bans negotiations with foreign countries on behalf of the U.S. without authorization. Just because speech would be involved in that doesn't mean it violates the 1A any more than solicitation of a hit man is constitutionally protected even though it involves speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

David, the Logan act was enacted by the same Congress that enacted the Alien and Sedition acts. And it has literally NEVER seen a completed prosecution. Only two people have EVER been prosecuted under it in all of US history, the last time was 1852, over 170 years ago. And both prosecutions were dropped before they reached trial.

It is literally only ever used as a threat, and never actually prosecuted, because, never mind what the DOJ says, it's widely expected that if they ever generated a test case the law would immediately be struck down.

[MarkJawz]

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/21/jamie-dimon-trump-credit-card-rate-cap-vermont-massachusetts.html

Why is this a bad thing? Reduced access to credit for low income people would be a good thing.

[Martinned]

Help me out, are we going to have to send NATO forces to Iceland too, or are you guys going to 86 this guy?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/live-blog/live-updates-trump-davos-greenland-europe-canada-air-force-one-rcna254575/rcrd96884?canonicalCard=true

[ducksalad]

Hey, look at the good news. At least for today he's saying he won't use force to take Greenland.

I'm hoping that's to avoid impeachment, but it could mean he's reserving the ships, aircraft, and troops to take his new prime target of Iceland.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My "Good News" Bible has less good news than Trump these days!

/kidding

[John F. Carr]

Standing and the culture wars, Colorado edition.

School districts in the conservative Colorado Springs area sued state officials over state rules that may ban them from organizing athletic teams based on biological sex. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal based on the principle that municipal subdivisions can not assert constitutional rights against the state that created them. This much I agree with. This principle did not carry the fight in Romer v. Evans, but that was of opposite polical valence.

The school district can not assert the rights of students because it is not clear beyond doubt that a high school student's athletic career is too short for the student to maintain standing throughout the case. Technically correct, I think, like excluding from the Statute of Frauds a contract that could in theory be completed in a year even though we know it will take longer.

The magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice on the grounds that prudential standing is a merits question rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70241005/school-district-49-v-sullivan/

[ReaderY]

The true meaning of the “peace board” becomes more apparent once it sinks in that Trump is shaking Norway down for a Nobel peace prize - or else.

[John F. Carr]

"Donald Trump would like to accept all the awards!" from "This Hour Has 22 Minutes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2c03zWoE4s

[ReaderY]

Trump is demanding that Bibi credit him for Iron Dome Looks like Trump’s efforts to determine who his real sycophants are vs. who is just pretending to go along are going global. You want in? Ya gotta drink the Kool-Aid all the way down.

The Obama Administration was in fact the main sponsor and funder of Iron Dome during its development. Just as Trump and sycophants are blaming Biden for Trump’s COVID policies during 2020 (when Trump was President), so Trump is attempting to credit himself for all Democratic Administration successes that might appeal to his base.

[John F. Carr]

Standing and the culture wars, New York edition.

A school district and the "Native American Guardian's Association" sued to block a state rule banning school mascots based on Native American symbols and imagery. The judge observed the rule "may have serious constitutional defects" because it "appears to enact a legal classification based on race or ancestry".

But... as in the Colorado case, plaintiff school district may not sue the state that created it to assert constitutional rights. And the organizational plaintiff has no rights at stake. NAGA purportedly licensed a mascot to the school district. NAGA had no right to the mascot. The licensing agreement was an attempt to manufacture standing. "The Agreement is akin to one where a Hellenic society dedicated to celebrating ancient Greek and Roman mythology enters into a 'contract' with Nike to permit the company to use its name."

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70404181/native-american-guardians-association-v-new-york-state-board-of-regents/

This decision from November. I just read it today. The plaintiffs vowed to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. I don't predict any interest from the court in this procedural posture. If a plaintiff with standing appears it's a good case. Only certain races are allowed to use Indian symbols. But as a government speech case it's a loser.

[John F. Carr]

I think this case is in the news recently because the plaintiff put out a press release about going all the way to the Supreme Court. The Second Circuit has the appeal now but I didn't find the docket.

The same group also lost a challenge to a similar Colorado law in 2022, also for lack of standing. The constitutional right to request a school to adopt a forbidden mascot was not denied. There was no right to have the school accept the request.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60698668/marez-v-redhorse/

[dwb68]

700 billion dollars for a nearly uninhabitable sheet of ice...?

Let me think.

No.

Trump should do what he did with Venezuela: simply take control of Greenlands economy. This is the reverse China Silk Road policy. Call it the Trump golden goose policy or something.

[Martinned]

There are lots of things Trump could do to take over Greenland, but he's not interested in doing any of them, because the point isn't Greenland, the point is humiliating his allies.

[ducksalad]

It could be both. It's basically the school bully who enjoys taking the weaker kid's lunch.

The central idea is that "winning" for such a person means getting something you shouldn't normally have had.

[dwb68]

Trumps negotiating style is often "present the really ugly alternative" then back off with a deal. He wrote this 40 years ago. Its not new for him.**

My advice, dont get emotionally wound up or ascribe motives. Youll live a happier life.

**Today: i dont have to invade. Maybe i could, but I don't want to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My advice, dont get emotionally wound up or ascribe motives. Youll live a happier life."

They can't help themselves when Trump is involved. As I've said, its like a cat and a laser pointer.

They set their hair on fire and run blindly and repeatedly into the wall while chasing the pointer.

[ducksalad]

1. Abduct Greenland's prime minister and charge him with narco-terrorism.
2. ???
3. Americans prosper from newfound wealth.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today, the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory—specifically, the Chagos Archipelago.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago

The U.S. supporting the agreement is appreciated.

“The Last Colony" by Phillippe Sand is a good discussion of the longstanding controversy. It is appreciated that the U.K. finally reached an agreement.

Oh well. Rubio might have to backtrack ...

Shockingly, our “brilliant” NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness. These are International Powers who only recognize STRENGTH, which is why the United States of America, under my leadership, is now, after only one year, respected like never before. The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING. Thank you for your attention to this matter. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Mike Johnson reassured the British:

Mr. Trump issued his statement as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, a Republican, was in the U.K. to address the British parliament, where he told lawmakers the U.S. and U.K. had "always been able to work through our differences calmly as friends. We will continue to do that. I want to assure you this morning that that is still the case."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-uk-chagos-islands-mauritius-deal-diego-garcia/

More details:

In 2019, the International Court of Justice issued a non-binding ruling that called on the U.K. to give up control of the Chagos Islands, saying it had wrongfully forced out the people living on Diego Garcia to make way for the military base.

That ruling, in part, prompted the deal reached in 2024 for the U.K. to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. As part of the agreement, Britain got to maintain control of the military base on Diego Garcia through a 99-year lease, at a cost to the U.K. of about $136 million per year.

[Martinned]

In his defence, Trump probably forgot that he was strongly in favour of this deal, negotiated by his Tory friends, before he was against it. And who knows, if the British send him a gold statue of himself, maybe he'll be in favour of it again tomorrow?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Looking at the coverage, the Tories seem to be against it now, given they aren't in power.

[Martinned]

Yes. They're having an amnesia problem too. They've forgotten lots of things about the last 15 years.

[ducksalad]

if the British send him a gold statue of himself

Nope, too late. It has to be a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Martinned]

No, that's Norway. The Brits should invent a Royal Peace Award and send it to him. As long as it's gold and comes from the King, he'll love it.

[ducksalad]

I think ReaderY nailed it. The first official action of the Board of Peace will be to form an awards committee.

[Martinned]

Speaking of senile, this is what Trump also said today, in German-
speaking Davos:

"After the war, which we won, we won it big. Without us, right now, you‘d all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps. After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now?!"

https://bsky.app/profile/justinbaragona.bsky.social/post/3mcwtw5udcs2n

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you are saying only Swiss-German speaking people were in the audience? Perhaps you're the senile one.

[Martinned]

You seem to be pretty cavalier about having a president who doesn't remember where he is or which country he wants to attack.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They'd be speaking German if not for us" is a common US expression about ungrateful Euros. He knew he was speaking to mainly non-Germans.

"After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark."

Correct. We had occupied and ran it it all war.

[Martinned]

a common US expression

So is "what Hawaii needs is more guns", but that doesn't mean it's something a sane US president should say.

[Bob from Ohio]

Every Euro speaker at Davos trashed the US but Trump should be considerate. You have some nerve.

He should have added "or Russian".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

German Guest: Can we help you?
Basil Fawlty: Oh, you speak English.
German Guest: Of course.
Basil Fawlty: Ah, wonderful! WUNDERBAR! Ahh! Please allow me to introduce myself, I am the owner of Fawlty Towers. And may I welcome your war... your war... you wall... you all... you all, and hope that your stay will be a happy one. Now, would you like to eat first, or would you like a drink before the war... AHH! Er... trespassers will be tied up with piano wire... SORRY, SORRY!

[Ridgeway]

Basil: You started it!
German Guest: No we didn't!
Basil: Yes you did. You invaded Poland!

IIRC, that is also the episode where the Major explains the difference between West Indians and East Indians with an amusing anecdote.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"I hate Germans ... The women, good card players"

[TwelveInchPianist]

For anyone who doesn't think government waste, fraud, and abuse is a thing:

To file a petition in this Court, litigants must pay a $300 fee, along with the (much higher) cost of printing 40 bound copies of their filing.

[Bored Lawyer]

That needs an update. Many district courts do not even require paper copies at all. They just read the PDFs filed by litigants or their counsel.
Appellate courts and SCOTUS do generally require paper copies. Maybe it's time for them to join the 21st century.

[ducksalad]

Frankly that's pretty cheap considering the amount of work you're demanding from the government. The 40 bound copies also made sense when the rule was put in, it'll probably go away once all the justices are people born in Internet era.

They've got some pauper rules so it's not blocking poor people from getting access.

And in any case, the cost is utterly negligible compared to the lawyers. Something on the order of 1%.

[John F. Carr]

The legal fees of a paid petition dwarf the document fees.

What happens to all the copies after the clerks are done mocking them? Archives or recycling?

[ducksalad]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8906685,-77.0041763,110m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDExMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Zoom into the compound on the NE corner of the building. Looks like a junk lot. On the South side just west of center there is something that looks like a dumpster.

[Martinned]

Belgian PM Bart de Wever was also not pulling punches in Davos. (For context, he's a right-wing Flemish nationalist, who has traditionally been Eurosceptic and Atlanticist.)

Some quotes from a panel discussion:

"Nobody wants to join the United States"

"People want to join the European Union"

"Because we have respect, the rule of law, and we speak softly"

"I would like to confirm the US is an ally, but they have to behave like an ally"

"The West is not united, but Putin sees that we are divided"

"I grew up in the 80s where the West stood for something, sovereignty, democracy, freedom"

"The idea that in a conflict between a tyrant and a democracy, the United States says they're not going to take sides? - Putin sees this"

"Now a NATO country is threatening another NATO country? It would not discourage him from his attack on Ukraine"

[grb]

"I grew up in the 80s where the West stood for something, sovereignty, democracy, freedom"

Pre-MAGA. Such high principles got in the way of their political entertainment. When owning-the-libs and WWE-grade theatrics are all that's important, ideals & standards become pesky, irksome things.

[Martinned]

Well, sort of. There were many people around the world in the 1980s who maybe had a different impression of the West/the US, but the pursuit of these goals was at least considered desireable, and plausible enough that it was possible to maintain the pretence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we speak softly""

Yeah, no joke.

"The Belgian Armed Forces had 23,200 active personnel in 2023, including 8,500 in the Land Component, 1,400 in the Naval Component, 4,900 in the Air Component, 1,450 in the Medical Component, and 6,950 in joint service, in addition to 5,900 reserve personnel.[125] In 2019, Belgium's defense budget totaled €4.303 billion ($4.921 billion) representing .93% of its GDP"

.93% of its GDP! Welfare case, dependent on the US for security.

[Mr. Bumble]

Their role in NATO is to supply waffles and chocolate to the troops.

[grb]

Just as long as they don't put mayonnaise on the damn pommes frites.

[David Nieporent]

It's a tiny country; if it spent 100% of its GDP on defense it would still be dependent on its allies (which formerly included the U.S.) for security.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's a country of 12 million with an army smaller than the NYPD and a GDP that ranks 22nd in the world.
Slackers.

[Bob from Ohio]

It had 220,000 men in the army in 1914 and held out for 4 years in part of the country. 610,000 troops in 1940, held out for 17 days longer than our Dutch friends.

It could do much better but would rather be a dependent.

Only the Poles and the French have militaries worth the name, not even the Brits anymore.

[John F. Carr]

One of our Ilyas was interviewed on the PBS Newshour about Trump's first year back in office. He was somewhat defensive of Trump instead of repeatedly calling him cruelly illegal and illegally cruel, so you can guess which Ilya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xceGx9zYE

"This doesn't satisfy anybody's narrative, but I point to TikTok as the biggest violation by President Trump."

[apedad]

Read this if you want continue to be angry at (or in support of) Dems.

Crime, guns, and taxes: Democrats seek to reshape Virginia moments after taking power

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/state/4426154/crime-guns-taxes-democrats-seek-reshape-virginia-moments-after-power/

[David Nieporent]

Read that if (a) you're dumb enough to pay the Washington Examiner to get past their paywall; and (b) you don't understand how legislatures work. "Democrats" don't seek to do anything. Anyone can introduce a bill. Yes, these were introduced by Democratic legislators, but that in no way means they have majority support or even significant support.

[LexAquilia]

I like how they made hand counts of ballots illegal, abortions up to birth legal, and legislated discrimination against Whites. Amongst other things.

White people will be extinct if the Democrats even regain power.

[David Nieporent]

They did not, of course, do any of those things.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“How Trump Has Used His Presidency to Make at Least $1.4 Billion”

NYT Editorial:

President Trump has never been a man to ask what he can do for his country. In his second term, as in his first, he is instead testing the limits of what his country can do for him.

He has poured his energy and creativity into the exploitation of the presidency — into finding out just how much money people, corporations and other nations are willing to put into his pockets in hopes of bending the power of the government to the service of their interests.

A review by the editorial board relying on analyses from news organizations shows that Mr. Trump has used the office of the presidency to make at least $1.4 billion. We know this number to be an underestimate because some of his profits remain hidden from public view. And they continue to grow.

A hotel in Oman. An office tower in western India. A golf course on the outskirts of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. These are a few of the more than 20 overseas projects the Trump Organization is pursuing, often requiring cooperation with foreign governments. These deals have made millions for the Trumps, according to Reuters. And the administration has sometimes treated those same governments favorably. One example: The administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam about a month after a Trump Organization project broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi. Vietnamese officials ignored their own laws to fast-track the project.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=153900

[LexAquilia]

>A review by the editorial board relying on analyses from news organizations shows that Mr. Trump has used the office of the presidency to make at least $1.4 billion.

"has used the office" as supported by inferences and insinuation. No proof. Just dog whistles and implications.

lol pathetic, another failed whack-a-doo hit piece on Teflon Don.

[John F. Carr]

The allegations are the sort of conflict of interest that we want politicians to avoid. And judges. Alito recused himself from a recent case because of a financial interest in a corporate party. He was not likely to get rich or poor based on his vote. He might not have been influenced at all.

The President should not be in a position to ask or receive personal favors from foreign governments.

The Onion went after Trump for this behavior in his first term: You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President.

[LexAquilia]

Fair enough on Alito. But the Trump brand or business empire can't cease to exist, be liquidated (technically it can - but this is unreasonable), nor can it be put into a blind trust like passive financial instruments or managed funds. Furthermore, as broad of reach as the Trump organization is, it's hard to even isolate it because just about any operation it has could have an appearance of impropriety to someone. Trump also can't recuse himself in a manner like Alito.

Just about every politician has some business or institute that is still operating and in existence while they are in Congress or in office. Many of them staffed with family members. What can be done with assets like stocks, simply can't be done to a operating business or institute.

A solution is definitely needed. For Trump and for all of them.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with this unusually sane comment from Voltage,¹ but at a bare minimum a president's company should cease doing business overseas while he's president. Yes, he'll have to forgo some profits by doing so, but that's the sacrifice he should make if he wants to be president.

¹Though of course he expresses a level of concern for Trump that he didn’t for, say, Hunter Biden.

[ThePublius]

Who's Voltage?

[grb]

There was a commentator a while back who bragged about lying, claiming the lies were "voltage" that guaranteed attention. Like many of our (worthless) rightwing trolls, he has repeatedly disappeared and reappeared with a new handle. DN believes LexAquilia his latest incarnation.

[David Nieporent]

There's no dispute that RedHeadedPharoh/LexAquilia/DDHarriman/guywithabunchoffakedegrees is the Voltage! guy.

And just for background, he tried to claim that he was just borrowing this "Voltage!" tactic from an Obama aide. (I forget which one: Plouffle? Axelrod? Je ne me souviens pas.) But the story that he was referring to, the aide said that his tactic was to loudly publicize outrageous things, not to lie. That was Voltage!'s personal fillip on the matter.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, and quoting a sentence from the beginning of the piece isn't going to settle if he crossed the line. That would be "lol pathetic."

Granting some non-overly extreme standard is appropriate, multiple analyses spelled out how much Trump and his family are monetizing the presidency in ways the Constitution's emoluments clauses alone should guard against, putting aside good policy.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2013849936832422292

This is shameful behavior for a politician. She should be censured and arrested for targeting lawful government functions.

Sarcastr0 will defend it with a whatabout + strawman, DN will say the Rep. Crocket didn't say the words she clearly said in the video, and Queenie will come up with some really dumb unrelated comment.

[John F. Carr]

She's running for Senate and needs some attention. The Republicans might go with Paxton which means a Democrat has a chance if she can get attention.

[ducksalad]

You know, you could have made a good or at least debatable point that she's exaggerating stuff and not particularly helpful.

But then you had to advocate arresting people for expressing stuff you don't like, which means you yourself are advocating lawlessness, and it becomes important to deny you aid and comfort. So screw your worries, I'll listen when someone responsible complains about her.

[LexAquilia]

I am applying Jack Smith's theory of targeting lawful functions he used in his Trump prosecution.

Did you reject his investigation or his legal theories? Or only reject them now when they aren't being applied to one particular individual?

That last paragraph was rhetorical. We know the answer. Every last one of you on this board were supporting the prosecution of Trump.

[ducksalad]

Rule of Goats.

[LexAquilia]

That's stupid and just a lame cognitive out.

Do you agree with Jack Smith's legal theories or are you disgusted by them because they advocated arresting people for expressing stuff he didn't like?

[David Nieporent]

Jack Smith did not, of course, advocate arresting anyone for "expressing stuff he didn't like." If he had, I would have opposed that. But in fact he expressly said the opposite.

And you don't believe any of this; you're just doing the same thing you did after Impeachment #1, where you and your ilk just labeled every single person who said anything about Democrats a "whistleblower." It was nothing more than IKYABWAI?

[LexAquilia]

What is the difference between Trump's statements that were illegal and criminal and Jasmine's?

You just deny and never justify. Is that how you practice law?

[ducksalad]

1. I think Jack Smith was overly zealous. Not outside the law, but not using his discretion wisely and not helping us recover from what happened. However,

2. as DN points out, he did not advocate jailing people for expressing opinions, even very bad ones. YOU are the one doing that. Furthermore,

3. some censors do what they do because they are obsessed with their just cause and never really understood why we have freedom of speech. YOU, on the other hand, evidently understand very well that freedom of speech is important, but advocate for censorship and arrests anyway knowing that you are doing wrong. That makes you incrementally worse than them, and fully justifies applying the Rule of Goats.

[LexAquilia]

He advocating jailing Trump for speech that "targeting lawful government functions".

How is Jasmine claiming ICE is literally lynching blacks, also not speech that targets a lawful government function"?

My goal is to reinforce how utterly immoral and gross you people are with your lawfare by applying it to other cases outside of Trump Law.

Smiths theories are awful

[David Nieporent]

How is Jasmine claiming ICE is literally lynching blacks, also not speech that targets a lawful government function"?

Well, first, your facts are wrong. In the linked video she didn't say that ICE was doing that. She just said this was a time when black people were being lynched down south. Second, even if she had said that, it's not targeting any government function. (And certainly not — much to your chagrin — a "lawful" one.")

[RedheadedPharoh]

She literally refers to "once u wuz back in da office" immediately after lying about lynching.

Literally. Insane.

[Josh R]

Repeating from my response below, Smith required a knowing lie that targeted a government function.

Trump's alleged knowing lie: the election was stolen from him.
Trump's government function: certification of the vote count.

Crockett: what was her knowing lie and what government function was targeted?

[RedheadedPharoh]

"Black bodies being lynched"

"once u wuz back in da office"

[Josh R]

Smith's theory is that Trump knowingly said lies (he knew he lost the election) in order to stop a government function (the certification of of Biden's election). Did Crockett knowingly lie. What government function is she trying to stop?

[David Nieporent]

I will say that her quoted comments — assuming they were not ripped so far out of context as to actually mean the opposite — were as stupid and dishonest as a typical Voltage! post.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She should be censured and arrested for targeting lawful government functions."

Lyndon Johnson should have been arrested for targeting lawful government functions.

[LexAquilia]

What to make of that "No Kings" lit up billboard above Davos.

It's just so mind-blowingly hypocritical and blind. At least a dozen of the countries represented have literal actual kings and the whole meeting was for those kings to meet with corporate kings and billionaire kings so they can create their BBB Great Reset kingdom where they rule and lord over all of us.

Hyperbole aside, the big signal there was that all the old boogeymen the Left has been using to take power and our wealth --- climate change in particular --- vanished and it was all AI.

These evil sick people have evil sick plans using AI.

[David Nieporent]

Um, there is literally nothing hypocritical about it. Do you think it was the WEF who put up that sign?

[ducksalad]

They have literal kings who are actually powerless, and accept that.

We have a literal president who actually claims powers similar to George III, and loses what little rationality he has left if challenged.

[LexAquilia]

If you check out the Canadian Constitution, you'll see the King of England has the power to dissolve their government as he wishes. Australia is the same way. Not sure about Britain.

Further, if you knew anything about Crown lands, or lease holds, you wouldn't have said what you said.

[Sarcastr0]

https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/2014014468456407167

Photographer @mostafabassim1
photographed this boy walking home alone with a snack being "randomly" approached by DHS. "After he was unable to produce documentation proving his citizenship, agents informed him that he was under arrest." He said, "Can I just go home?" Answer: No.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where did Bier get the picture and account of what happened?
Mostafa's X account shows no posts.

[David Nieporent]

Um, go to the very next tweet in Bier's thread.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not on X, how about a link?

[grb]

Video showing the goons loading the kid into a van.

https://x.com/StatusCoup/status/2010788246725263480

[David Nieporent]

Well, the next tweet to which I referred was this: https://x.com/David_J_Bier/status/2014014704067239942?s=20

But it links to Mostafa's Instagram feed, which is where the picture is from: https://www.instagram.com/mostafa_bassim?hl=en

[ThePublius]

My initial impression is that this is bullshit. No place, date, time, etc. is mentioned in the post on X. Nothing in the news about it that I can find.

I'm interested and open to learning more.

[ThePublius]

too late to edit...

I see it was supposedly in Minneapolis.

[grb]

https://x.com/StatusCoup/status/2010788246725263480

[ThePublius]

Thanks for that. Yea, that doesn't seem right. In the U.S. you shouldn't have to prove your citizenship or even identity just walking around.

[Mr. Bumble]

They hardly appear to be acting as goons and I can't make out any of the conversation, especially over the idiots honking their horns.

[grb]

Those jackboots need to be tongue-polished gleaming bright and Bumble is just the man for the job! Because only he could watch a child kidnapped off the street by armed masked thugs and whine about people "honking their horns" being the problem.

Really stellar set of priorities you have there, guy .......

[Mr. Bumble]

Piss off wanker.

[grb]

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0CG56FLBX/reasonmagazinea-20/

[grb]

Worth a thousand words:

https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit story by bullshit apologists for Walz. Frey, Ellison and the DFL.

[grb]

ThePublius : "Yea, that doesn't seem right. In the U.S. you shouldn't have to prove your citizenship or even identity just walking around."

We're in agreement. However, this kind of thing is now common in Minneapolis. Here's another one:

https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-woman-calmly-resists-ice-demand-id-birth-country

[grb]

Here's Mark Burley, Police Chief of Brooklyn Park, Min, talking about his own off-duty officers being stopped and rousted for their "papers" :

"With that said, recently—as in the last two weeks—we as a law enforcement community have been receiving endless complaints about civil rights violations in our streets from U.S. citizens. What we’re hearing is they’re being stopped in traffic stops or on the street with no cause and being forced to produce paperwork to determine if they are here legally. As this went on over the past two weeks, we started hearing from our police officers the same complaints, as they felt victimized by this while off duty. Every one of these individuals is a person of color who has had this happen to them."

Bruley then told the story of the female officer’s disturbing encounter:

“In Brooklyn Park, one particular officer who shared her story with me was stopped as she passed ICE going down the roadway. When they boxed her in, they demanded her paperwork, of which she’s a U.S. citizen and clearly would not have any paperwork.

When she became concerned about the rhetoric and the way she was being treated, she pulled out her phone in an attempt to record the incident. The phone was knocked out of her hands, preventing her from recording it. The officers had their guns drawn during this interaction. And after the officer became so concerned, she was forced to identify herself as a Brooklyn Park police officer in hopes of slowing the incident and de-escalating the situation. The agents then immediately left after hearing this, making no other comments, no other apologies—just got in their vehicles and left.

I wish I could tell you that this was an isolated incident. In fact, many of the chiefs standing behind me have similar incidents with their off-duty officers. This isn’t just important because it happened to off-duty police officers. But what it did do is we know that our officers know what the Constitution is, they know what right and wrong is, and they know when people are being targeted. And that’s what they were. If it is happening to our officers, it pains me to think how many of our community members are falling victim to this every day. It has to stop."

https://www.krem.com/article/news/nation-world/ice-agents-racially-profiling-citizens-off-duty-police-officers-minnesota/507-6ab4ec75-b7e3-489b-a2f4-f39f3d7fec30

[TwelveInchPianist]

Cops being stopped and frisked? That's terrible!

[grb]

Kinda strange. I though TIP was one of those mighty keyboard warriors ready to face down the Man to defend Liberty. Turns out, he's only a timid little soul who thinks the Constitution valid only after you meekly ask the authorities for their permission to allow it.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0CG56FLBX/reasonmagazinea-20/

[TwelveInchPianist]

I've been saying for years that cops should be more accountable, we should get rid of QI, pass a law giving a cause of action for federal violations, etc.

It's funny that you guys suddenly wake up when laws you don't like are being enforced, and your solution isn't to do anything to make cops in general more accountable, it's to abolish the agency that enforces the laws you don't like.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : "It's funny that you guys suddenly wake up...."

And it's sad how everything you claim to champion is flicked-off and abandoned just because you enjoy seeing people with black or brown skin being mistreated.

[grb]

Meanwhile, per the AP:

"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."

"The memo, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, and dated May 12, 2025, says: “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/politics/ice-memo-enter-homes-without-judges-warrant

Hey - the Gestapo didn't need any warrants - why should they?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in pardon news:
https://dailycaller.com/2026/01/21/murphy-pardons-hit-run-donor-son-conviction-last-day-office/?_gl=1*18lkg2t*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTY4NDU1MjcwMC4xNzY5MDIwMTE5*_ga_B906X4P4C5*czE3NjkwMjAxMTgkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjkwMjAxMTgkajYwJGwwJGgw

[John 4]

Trump doesn’t know the difference between Greenland and Iceland, apparently. That’s a good sign.

[Ska]

https://babylonbee.com/news/whoops-trump-reveals-hes-actually-been-thinking-of-iceland-this-whole-time

Edit: man, no h refs here?

[Moderation4ever]

This makes me think that there might be a piece of rock sticking out of the Atlantic Ocean and that Demark can tell him it is Greenland and it all his for $8 billion dollars. There no real way he would know the difference.

[Ridgeway]

[misplaced]

[ThePublius]

"On this day in 1793, Louis XVI was executed by guillotine in the Place de la Révolution, now the Place de la Concorde, in Paris. The United States might well never have come into existence without the massive aid, military and financial, provided by Louis’ government; and the budgetary strains incurred by that aid contributed rather directly to the calling of the Estates-General in 1789 and thus to the Revolution itself. Hence it is fitting for Americans to honor Louis’ end. What follows is a bibliographic essay in memoriam, presenting a set of sources, written in or translated into English, on the pseudo-trial of the King and his subsequent martyrdom."

Read the whole thing:

https://thenewdigest.substack.com/p/the-trial-and-martyrdom-of-louis-1b8

[grb]

Once again, Trump humiliates the United States before the eyes of a laughing world. Mid-rant on "Iceland" :

"They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money."

Want to know what's really sad? Watch the video clip and he's so smug up there on the podium as he makes a complete fool of himself. I doubt there's a single participant at Davos who doesn't see him as a braindead joke. A dangerous joke, to be sure. But laughable & beyond contempt still.

Of course our Right finds his kindergarten mishaps entertaining, and that's all that counts for them.

[Ridgeway]

I cant believe this was all one big Andy Kaufman-esque meta-joke, just so Trump can say, "Iceberg, Greenberg -- what's the difference."

[Moderation4ever]

The difference is that had it been Joe Biden making the mistake it would be on a continuous loop on Fox. Trump has lost it and people are covering up the fact.

[John 4]

Hahaha

[Sarcastr0]

I've been trying to see. I think Trump's "Board of Peace" currently consists of United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Albania, and Uzbekistan

Trump is slowly creating the USSSR.

[grb]

I'm withholding judgement. Of course you can't have a "Board of Peace" without North Korea, but I'm sure Trump is waiting to announce them last......

[Roger S]

Trump just announced a Greenland deal. No details yet.

[LexAquilia]

The Art of the Deal

[Glaucomatose]

It's beautiful. We're going to have the right to do military bases there, and American companies will be doing mineral extraction, and they'll be part of NATO and Denmark will spend at least 2% of its GDP on the military. It's a huge deal.

[David Nieporent]

Roger is quite gullible. He announced the "framework" of a deal, not an actual deal. (That's like his health care "concept of a plan.") Only trouble is, he claimed to have negotiated it with… the head of NATO, not the Danish government. Only the latter can negotiate over Greenland.

[Sarcastr0]

An observer arrested in Suth Minneapolis. Photo by Richard Tsong-Taatarii/The Minnesota Star Tribune

https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426

[They have them on the ground, subdued, and are needlessly pepper-spraying them directly in the face.]

This ICE has been violently attacking people all over Minnesota, with high frequency. No immigration purpose, no Constitutional or legal authority.

The accumulated weight of evidence makes claims of fake news nonviable. Not for this broader story.

[Sarcastr0]

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d

Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.