@anti_dan's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC


User ID: 887



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 887

?? Biden has been extremely moderate and a bunch of far left cultural elements seem to be coming to heel. What’s going on in the movie you’re watching?

You'd describe the border as moderate? Ketanji Jackson-Brown? Numerous attempts to imprison Republicans over slap on the wrist level infractions?

My answer is 'probably around 300 to 500 years.'

A fairly unhinged estimate. Jewish refugees and Chinese immigrants have shown quite definitively the answer, in America, is closer to 20 years. Almost all of your subpoints are simply wrong, and/or disconnected from what is happening in America. Poor education does not stick, indeed, in America, blacks are furnished with better education than anyone else (save for the part where they are in classrooms with other black kids). Black kids raised in the top 10% households commit crimes on rates on par with white kids in the bottom 10%. The problem is clearly not some legacy, unless that legacy is an internalized cultural one. An internalized culture that would be stronger by orders of magnitude than any other in the US from 1950 to today, and it also would have to have magically also spun up a high bastardy rate as part of its legacy.

All the other things he listed as better alternatives are naked to attack without HBD though. This is evidenced that all those things are under attack (often quite successfully) as we speak, at least partially because HBD is outside the overton window. The correct answer to no blacks at Harvard law without HBD, is probably racism.

I don't consider it much of a "rare" miss. I find Hanania's writings increasingly incoherent across the board, and I think he is generally searching for an odd niche to try and maintain relevance now that his actual big splash in has waned. Trying to balance takes in the anti-woke sphere to ensure you are "respectable" tends to put you into a land of comments that are either uninteresting, or fallacious, and thats where this one, and a lot of them recently, have landed.

‘Tightening the rules around violent crimes getting bargained down to misdemeanors for the nth time’ is a reasonable technocratic thing that Texas might do if it gets around to it

I'd put that in the "not likely anywhere at all". And Texas as a whole can't do much either. These are all local decisions made by prosecutors offices based around a bunch of overworked, understaffed, underpaid ASAs and ADAs doing triage on a messy docket. Dealing with violent criminals as violent criminals is much harder than dealing with them when they are doing other, easy to prove, bad things like shoplifting and being illegal immigrants. Thats why things like the no-pros on shoplifting has such outsized effects. That is a 2 hour bench trial and then with 3 strikes or similar laws you've got someone off the street for 90 days, then 180 then 365, etc. A felony trial is going to take 2 days minimum.


I am willing to go on the "fraud never stopped, why the heck do you think it did" theory. I will cite known major fraud cases and indicate that nothing has changed to make that less likely.

I have contact with states attorneys who deal almost exclusively with DUIs and other traffic matters. The fact is, minor offenses are down, major offenses are up. DUIs, going 40+ over the limit, way up. Going 10 over, almost non existent in court. So we have seen the enforcement bifurcation, at least in this area.

The other obvious problem I've seen is people did forget how to drive. The number of bad drivers has clearly increased. Maybe the DMV waiving in person testing for a while is a cause, maybe people just lost it after 12 months with no traffic, but the roads are clearly less safe.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate based on him ascending to the presidency? He is an example of an excellent Democratic politician, even if such a thing succeeding is bad for the country.

I dont doubt that there is an aspect of ass-covering by him when he makes his testimony. That said, no one has testified under oath that he failed to request additional backup on J3.

While I consider all dual citizenship objectionable, and would lightly call for the deportation of all such peoples to their other place of citizenship (excepting those who's other countries would not allow them to renounce) Israel should be at the bottom of any such lists. They would, literally, be my last priority. Their concerns are legitimate. I think there is a major political party in America that is on track to seek their extinction as a race. So, yeah, when we have rid ourselves of the dual loyalty Mexican, Somali, Canadian, Chinese, and other X-Americans, we can deal with the Israeli problem. But I doubt we will have much such problems when all those others are sent away.

  • -13

The former Chief of Capitol Police testified to Congress on this point.


He makes fairly explosive allegations, including that he requested additional deployment of Capitol Police and the National Guard before J6 that was denied (request made Jan 3); that there was intelligence from other federal agencies about the potential for a riot that was not shared until after J6 (his deputy that he alleges was briefed and never reported to him, suspiciously was promoted to his position after he was forced to resign); that he asked, on the day of J6 for the National Guard to respond both before the riot broke, before the building was breached, and after, and this was not approved (he alleges he made 32 calls to congressional leadership, particularly the House Sergeant at Arms, who at the time reported directly to Nancy Pelosi requesting National Guard Backup, all denied or not responded to) . At one point he stated that off duty police from New Jersey arrived before the National Guard (which he alleges only showed up for, essentially, a photo op). He said he was not informed ahead of time that there were informants for other agencies at the Capitol, of which he confirms there was at least one.

Also he stated he was not allowed to publicly testify for the J6 committee, which he requested after the private session, which he also then claims that leaks mischaracterized his testimony.


It seems quite clear that there was a lack of interest in keeping the Capitol Building safe on that day from a lot of parties. And again, cui bono? The same people who had no interest in protecting the Capitol!

It’s actually a fair amount of work to find good content.

Depends on your interests. I listen to podcasts going to and from work, as well as during chores and working out. This totals about 2.5 hrs a day. I easily have 10 hours of content I could listen to via the podcasts I subscribe to produced daily. There are several high quality sports podcasts that usually make around 3, 1 hour, episodes each week (obviously not for everyone). I also find many political podcasts amusing. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But by way of example, the Daily Wire probably produces 8 hours of content a day, Vox does ~ 3 hrs a day (and there are many such networks on both sides). There are also several niche subjects with leading podcasts that are typically weekly or biweekly.

The market is very oversaturated, I agree, but that means you can just subscribe to everything, and periodically cull your feed of the bad podcasts, and throw things out, even of the good podcasts, if they aren't discussing a topic you are interested in.

It probably would be fine, but under Article 1-10 that would not be enforceable against any state utilizing its police powers. The framework, I think, intentionally leaves this power to both sovereigns as the founders presumed each would be corrupt, corruptible, and/or incompetent at any time, and thus they would work to check each other, as appears to be happening with Texas' actions. I think there are indications in the drafting discussions, federalist papers, etc that this is a non-justiciable question.

No, not on its own. The reason I believe it's a thing is the number of people involved, their intent to obstruct especially critical government proceedings, and the level of violence directed towards that end. The protestors would not have been able to enter the Capitol had they not had the numbers, the motivation, and the willingness to get violent. Had the Capitol been open that day and J6 protestors entered and acted peacefully, there's no reason it would've have been a thing.

This appears to be a huge point of disagreement IMO. I think that the J6 protestors entering the Capitol is very key to the depiction of the events. Without them entering the building, I think there is no rhetorical leg to stand on for the "insurrection" narrative.

Moreover, I don't think there was any violence necessary for them to enter the building, even though it was ostensibly closed. Indeed, it was on the lower ends of violence when we are talking about large groups that turn into a riot. IMO, given the incompetence at defending the building, no violence at all was needed for the J6 crowd to eventually end up in the Capitol, and had that happened with it being technically closed, the mainstream narrative would have remained the same. Most of the people in the Capitol were nonviolent after all, and still given misdemeanors, when a civil charge is probably more appropriate.

Had the Capitol been open there would still be great consternation, but I suppose there would be no leg to stand on in prosecuting them. But that strikes me as too wild of a hypothetical to really muse on.

The Arizona case that currently is the most relevant precedent was made on the thinnest of grounds and is ahistorical. And states, traditionally, had the power to reject foreigners, particularly the indigent. Precedents beggining in the 1960s are against this...but the Warren court is notoriously wrong about all things.

Also, the invasion/immigration thing is obviously a question of fact and law to be subject to intense argument and scrutiny if ever litigated. I don't think anyone in the federal government wants to be calling witnesses to the stand about how 5000 people a day crossing the border, more or less unvetted, through cartel territory, is actually technically immigration not an invasion. It looks like an invasion to a large % of the populace. It is an invasion in the practical sense that the people abetting it ( Biden) seek to use it to change the populace of the nation. Its a total landmine for that side. While the Abbot side is simple and good for him, at least until the point where he loses on a technicality (not guaranteed) and then calls Roberts a loser who sucks big donkey dick.

+++ Thank you. There is little discourse that strikes me as stupider and less informed by these sorts of takes on "locker room culture" and male spaces. Where else in the culture do we see people constantly collectively seeking greatness? And who else is generating greatness? Its no mistake that early Facebook, early Amazon, early Tesla (and kind of still Tesla) all get slandered with these same insults. Its what works! If you don't like men making jokes, pulling pranks, and enforcing norms against buggery, you don't like civilization. Which I suppose for some might be the point, but if you aren't part of that group enlighten thyself!

Similarly, maybe the FBI intentionally targets conservative groups for prosecution...or maybe lefties are less likely to hatch kidnapping plots, or maybe they're more suspicious of FBI infiltration, or maybe they're more likely to cover up their tracks, or maybe it's for some other reason.

Sure, give me a set of plausible reasons equivalent to IQ and criminality. Or even close? Leftist protests are routinely more violent. Leftists have higher rates of mental illness. There are well respected leftists that participated in bombings of government buildings. Its an odd idea to think there is an innocent explanation.

I admit I don't know what this means. As best as I can guess, it seems to mirror your point about J6 being valuable to Democrats

Entering the Capitol building is why J6 is anything, right. You can agree to this idea. Correct? Democrats only can make hay out of the event because of this. Thus, why that happened is really important when discussing the event.

Capitol police unloading assault rifles on a crowd doesn't sound "trivial". I also don't know what they could've done differently in protecting entrances like the one in the tunnel.

Like I said. 8 guys in sandals with sticks led by the proper man would have stopped J6. That entrance was a bit of a weak point. Should have simply been locked and barricaded beforehand. It provided no strategic value. Capitol police were also deployed to indefensible positions like the aluminum barricades that were deployed around the top level. Even without a riot most of those positions would have been overrun because that is not what those are even for. They are for directing the flow of very orderly people waiting to get onto a ride at Six Flags. The response time of the national guard was also delayed by over 6 hours because of the speaker's office. Its a series of very bad screw ups.

But you also make my point for me I think. Had the Capitol Police simply massacred all of the J6 protestors who wins? Traditionally, in American politics, losers win. This is bad. But it is known.

Alternatively...Biden could enforce the border. I know it sounds crazy, but at this point its a political win for him to work with Abbot.

Texas is standing up because they kind of are actually defending themselves against an invasion right now. Several hospitals are basically only serving migrants and aren't being compensated. They are threatening to shut down and leave the state. Biden has no political leg to stand on, and only a thin legal leg that there are 4 strong votes on SCOTUS to kick out from under him, and 2 questionable votes.

I don't really have any quibbles with any of your points, I'm just saying its something that needs to be on the table. Particularly when paired with the testimony from the head of the Capitol Police who, essentially, said he was sabotaged by Pelosi, McConnell, the DOD, and the FBI.

No. My statement is Israel needs nothing, but Palestine would be zero without aid. Every dollar provided to Palestine has a significant percentage eventually funneled to terror campaigns against Israel. Without international aid Palestine would cease to exist.

Regarding a podcast, I would be wiling to do one, but it would probably not be on this topic, which I am not passionate about. That being Ray Epps status as a fed or no.

Regarding the specific subsections my points would be:

  1. The Whitmer case presents a prima facie case that needs to be rebutted by an equally ridiculous prosecution of left wingers to rebut. See also, the abortion cases (protesters at clinics vs. at pro life clinic protesters). Until the FBI entraps lefties by conjuring a kidnapping plot out of whole cloth of a Republican governor you will never satisfy the level of scrutiny you asked for in this interview.

  2. The value to Democrats is literally the whole game. If you dont care about this point you don't care about the most important thing.

  3. I am simply saying that it was trivial to prevent J6 from being "a thing". So the fact that it is "a thing" is odd.

  4. I did not want to invoke this because its silly, but the best analogy of J6 is the Reichstag fire. Maybe it was Commies, maybe it was Nazis. But we know who it benefited. And in many ways it is worse. There is testimony on the record from the former chief of the Capitol police being denied backup.

Do I think a podcast would be beneficial? Maybe. It would take an exorbitant amount of time to assemble the sources, of course, because they are mostly suppressed by search engines. So, it would only really be of benefit to talk about things where you don't stipulate to facts if you have some unpaid interns that can go out and get the transcripts from testimony and bookmark them for us. Otherwise I am going to be saying things and you will be asking for citations that are onerously burdensome to provide.

I disagree. 14 billion looks like a bigger number because the spending is asymmetric. Iron dome is expensive suicide vests and rockets are cheap. Defense against this kind of aggression is easily 100x more expensive, probably closer to the 10000x multiplier. So its not clear that Israel is coming out ahead.

Who cares if Palestine has nothing?

Israel. If they have nothing, Israel needs nothing. But we give them a lot, and they divert much of it to waging terror campaigns.

A few points that I think are salient to the issues presented, but I don't think were appropriately discussed.

  1. The FBI, prior to J6 had many directives to investigate conservative orgs. There really was no rational and reasonable reason to be doing this, so it is very strong evidence (alongside the cornucopia of evidence discussed here) that there is serious anti-conservative bias at that organization, which obviously is a key cog in the "deep state" as defined in the discussion.

  2. Yassine didn't think entering the Capitol Building/encouraging that was all that dispositive, and I don't think this was pushed back against enough. Entering the Capitol IS why J6 is "JANUARY SIXTH". If no one enters the building its a boring protest outside the Capitol that has no political value to Democrats at all.

  3. More buttressing of the problems with J6 is how, if there is no inside job, its just a demonstration of outright incompetency. I will describe a generic building to you: Large masonry structure, at the top of a hill, with armed guards. What have I described? A fort. Julius Caesar could have held the Capitol building against the J6 crowd with 8 men in sandals equipped with no more than some sticks and a few shields. An the Capitol police lose it with dozens of times that manpower? That is, indeed, suspicious.

  4. Also, chronically under-discussed is how incredibly valuable "JANUARY SIXTH" has been to Democrats. Not only has it been an excuse to prosecute thousands of conservatives in connection to it, not only has it been an excuse to prosecute an opposition candidate for the office of the President, but its been nearly their only political argument for 3 years now. Without J6 they have nothing. That protesters were allowed into the Capitol has resulted in the largest political victory for either party in my lifetime. And that really should mean something to anyone discussing the events of that day.