anti_dan
9hr ago
As far as I could ever tell, the Mueller report was, basically the actual coverup of the crimes. Mueller himself was a doddering figurehead who knew little about what was happening (selected because he was ostensibly a Republican, but his team was staffed with partisan Democrats), and clearly was at Joe Biden 2024 levels at the end. The report meticulously avoided investigating FBI wrongdoing, such as the dozens of leaks to partisan news organizations of half-truths, and the fabrication of evidence put into FISA applications, and instead focused on process crimes, often ones the investigation itself generated by doing things like not videotaping interviews, so agent memorializations could put interviewee's "statements" in the least favorable light when seeking indictments under $1001.
While some of the Trump conduct did seem at the time, obstructionist, with hindsight, we see it was perfectly justified. Trump's campaign advisors were illegally wiretapped. Comey himself attempted to blackmail Trump during the transition with the fake Steele Dossier (then leaked the fact that Trump was briefed on it so people could treat it like it was a serious FBI piece of work product). The Michael Flynn prosecution was an ongoing demonstration of the venality of the prosecutors, essentially bankrupting a man, and then the judge frustrating efforts to undue the ridiculous results.
All in all it was a big production to distract from what really happened which was a lot of illegal things at the FBI, wherein the Mueller report succeeded in its goals of hindering the Trump adminstration's agenda and running out the clock on those criminal and civil claims (and also fouling evidence by way of time).
anti_dan
1d ago
I get your point and entirely reject it.
Thats kinda silly. The people executing the search warrant dont know what the PC was. Thats on the detective and the judge.
anti_dan
2d ago
If a society believes that Black people are less intelligent and more criminal, and they are wrong, millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces.
Only if you subscribe to modern liberalism. Its perfectly fine to accept race differences without being compelled to subjugate people under classical liberalism. Lincoln, an abolitionist, fiercely believed in black inferiority. He had some creative solutions, such as deportation of many back to Africa, which probably would have worked decently for mainland America.
But there need not be drastic measures. American blacks could merely be treated equally, with the same expectations as everyone else, and it would dramatically improve things here. Of course, the backlash would be immense, as blacks treat equal treatment as oppression.
anti_dan
4d ago
The set of people who had control of the situation are the ones who have the burden of proof to demonstrate they were on the up and up. If someone comes to your house to set up a roach fumigating tent and then a meth lab explodes in your house...
anti_dan
4d ago
I think the adoption rate of real ID is a decent stand in for approximating how many people have their birth certificate, original SSN card, and a tax return available at the ready.
Nah. Its people who have those things + 5 hours to waste at the DMV.
anti_dan
4d ago
They would have IDs, even if they don’t always carry them. I would think the only people who really don’t have a government ID today are going to be dysfunctional hobos/junkies, and extremely “off the grid” types
One of my more favorite stories from being a new lawyer is how many female states attorneys (who always start in misdemeanors and traffic) admitted they had expired DLs or out of state DLs (despite living in and working in the state, which is against the law). Its like, your job is to prosecute yourself. Get with it!
anti_dan
5d ago
Back circa 2011-12 I speculated that if Obama wanted to win in such an incredible landslide that Dems could get back to close to their 2008 landslide would be to basically go away. The theory was that, in my opinion, "Fake Obama" aka the person who didn't really have policy positions and just had really good posters saying "Hope and Change" was much more popular than the real Obama. This is obviously true for Israel. Netanyahu is reviled by Europeans, so much that they have brought a bunch of pseudo-real criminal prosecutions against him for warcrimes of dubious veracity. If, instead, generic Israel is seen as a second tier actor in this war, they can default back to something like being 20% underwater instead of 30-40% in those areas.
anti_dan
5d ago
If we go in with no priors, then the situations can seem somewhat similar.
However that is not the case. In real life, we know Mossad knows where and when substantial portions of Iranian leadership takes a piss. On the other hand, we also know that Iran and the IRGC's best plan is typically to try and shoot as much shit as they can in the general direction of an Israeli airbase to hopefully kill a few pilots and temporarily take a runway offline.
anti_dan
8d ago
Because its in serious. Even vulgar Pete Hegseths critiques of the rules of engagement have not been seriously addressed in public, because everyone knows the dial was turned so far in one direction that, even going 10 steps in the other direction, you'd still be sacrificing combat effectiveness for dubious gains in civilian well being.
In addition, whatever you believe the war's goals are, regime change, fomenting rebellion, simply degrading military capabilities to a little baby turtle, full on ground invasion, etc. For any of those goals, the reality is that many civilians will die. In fact, they must die, we don't have some chemical agent we can sprinkle on Iran that targets only regime members, soldiers, and financial backers. We have actual real life bombs, shells, and bullets. Not magic.
I'll note, the same pearl clutching faced America in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was in charge, and recently Israel. Even though all those factions obviously used human shield as SOP. It seems more likely to me ROE objections are meant to prevent victory, rather than protect innocents.
anti_dan
9d ago
The problem is not incorrigibly brutal instincts, but the opposite: Tolerating crybullies who utilize their own citizens as human shields.
anti_dan
10d ago
My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.
They have long concluded this. I suspect they would have broken out during the Obama Admin if not for Stuxnet. Post-Obama a series of US and Israeli bombings are the only reason they haven't broken out, as the timeline if unimpeded is probably about 1 year.
anti_dan
10d ago
Every time I get to this question, my mind tends to focus on the Indian Naturalization act of 1924. If the birthright citizenship people are correct, the act was wholly unnecessary, and people were just wrong for half a century following the Civil War. If it was necessary, but illegal aliens and people here temporarily are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for purposes of birthright citizenship, we get absurd results. For instance, in 1900, a Member of the Cherokee nation whos parents lived in Montana at birth would not be a US citizen, but if they were a Canadian, even a Canadian member of the Cherokee nation, and those parents were visiting in Fargo at birth, that child would be a citizen. An insane result!
Unfortunately I don't think this or past iterations of SCOTUS cares particularly much if their ruling result in absurd outcomes. After all, I pay like 80% of the health insurance premium for every unemployed or poorly employed person in the state, and that is most certainly NOT A FINE.
anti_dan
13d ago
They proceeded to burn all that good will and more with their conduct afterwards (not helped by Netanyahu being an extraordinarily repellent figure to all but the far right)
This really cant be true IMO. Unless something like 99.9% of people who have allegedly "soured" on Israel post 10/7 are just too stupid to understand what the response was always going to be. You can't have a neighbor that launches hundred + man raiding bands into your territory where 1000+ of your people are killed, 200+ are taken hostage, and thousands of others injured, maimed, raped, not to mention the property damage. The only reasonable response to that is the maximum response.
If a Mexican cartel did that with the support (even tacit) support of the Mexican government and a hostile foriegn nation there would be no more Mexico. Everyone involved would obviously be killed, the government deposed, a gigantic DMZ imposed on their norther border, the country would be divided up into a bunch of territories administered by our local generals at first, later we'd let some local puppet have some semblance of authority. And the country would simply be broken up as well. Baja would be one protectorate, for maximum humiliation we'd call 3 of the new territories we create, "South New Mexico", "South Arizona", and "South Texas". No amount of civilian casualties would set us off of carrying out our goals, and no amount of dissent to our administration would be tolerated, up to and possibly including forcing them all to switch to English as an official language.
And if you asked any American President or Speaker of the House 1865-2000, "well isn't this proposal by some anon anti_dan a little extreme?" They'd first laugh at you, then tell you the US has a rich history of pseudonymous political writers, then tell you I'm a moderate, and a few would say something like, "thats a good idea, do we have to wait for the Mexicans to attack?"
anti_dan
13d ago
The reason that I would speculate there may be some actual treason or sedition cases during this war, in particular, is because of the huge network of Arab/Islamic "Advocacy" organizations in the US, many of which already stand credibly accused of funneling money and materials to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are Iranian proxies. I would not be surprised to learn many of them are sending cash or intel to the IRGC.
anti_dan
14d ago
It is trivial, with the current "very online right" and with the benefit of a (relatively recent) era that didn’t require "diversity", to impose a reactionary reading on the movie trilogy the Lord of the Rings. Having just finished watching the (otherwise pedestrian, at least in relation to the sublime Fellowship of the Ring) Two Towers, the analogies are almost too on the nose. We have a technocratic leader ("a mind of metal and wheels") who leads a rabid horde of third-worlders in a takeover of a 100% white, peaceful, free nation. In the books, the technocratic leader’s "new" cloak is literally rainbow hued. The free nation just wants to be left alone, but is eventually forced into battle. The leaders pine for a simpler, easier time; where valor, honor, and renown were attainable.
I would dispute calling Two Towers pedestrian. It contains, by my estimation and experience, the greatest fantasy battle ever put to film with the Battle of the Hornberg. I can quibble with some of Peter Jacksons deviations from the book telling, but it is still a masterpiece in building tension, demonstrating the overwhelming odds of the army set against the defenders, demonstrating the heroic feats of our heroes, etc.
anti_dan
15d ago
But its not silly because its the rhetorical usage most commonly applied.
anti_dan
16d ago
Democrats are becoming increasingly antisemitic at a much faster rate than Republicans (and I don't mean anti-Israel, I try to do my best to avoid conflating the two), so it makes sense for anyone who has that issue as a focus to gravitate in that direction.
anti_dan
16d ago
Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?
Its possible this will be the proper take at some time in the future. But currently it is not in evidence and not close to in evidence. Trumps previous military interventions have all been short and sweet, and mostly successful. The evidence that this one will not be is ???
As a result, I don't think many people actually care about the intervention itself, they are using it to grind some other axe. For some its pretty obvious: Israel. For others also obvious: TDS. For many others: I cannot tell as of yet.
anti_dan
17d ago
Of course, the smart set knows that Cuban was lucky. But we don't even have to leave the NBA to find another one: Steve Ballmer. He was Bill Gates's right hand man, so one can argue that he built part of the value of Microsoft. But when Gates handed the reins over to him, his tenure at the top wasn't exactly stellar. He had a few hits, but the Ballmer era will be known more for the long string of misses, and the end of Microsoft being the undisputed industry leader. If we move to another league but stay with Microsoft we have Paul Allen, who was instrumental in the very early days but quickly took to feuding with Gates and was forced out of the company. He didn't do much after that besides philanthropy and other stereotypical billionaire stuff, and most of his net worth came from stock he was able to hold onto.
I mean, even if Ballmer was a literal idiot, whats wrong with him having money and being a doofus at Clippers games? SOMEONE has to own the Clippers and his personality is entertaining. Its not like he's spending his billions lobbying for the expansion of food stamps or setting up a bunch of those fake "success academies" that just spend ungodly sums doing no better at educating poor kids than a lady in an unheated basement with a chalkboard would.
anti_dan
17d ago
I mostly agree, and don't see all that many billionaires acting like the OP describes. FOr example:
I guess I'm just kinda over us deciding that once you reach a certain net worth, you are some sort of luminous being. You can go to pedo island and it's fine, you can do drugs that normies go to prison for an it's fine, you can fuck up critical national infrastructure and it's fine, you have infinite money when it's time to do what you want but somehow you have no money (or negative money!) when it's time to contribute to the public good.
These sorts are incredibly rare. Instead most just kinda sit in anonymity being rich and living in luxury. The ones that are public figures are often total dorks that are funny and do things like buy sports teams then cheer enthusiastically on the sidelines just like they were a 12 year old. The rare few that are actually toxic to our society and discourse are actually closer to the OP's sentiment themselves. The Bill Gates or Mackenzie Bezos types that agree with the OP that being a billionaire is something that must be atoned for, so they distribute their billions in toxic ways intending to buy social clout with influential non-billionaires. If Bill just bout a mountain chateau in British Colombia and employed a bunch of servants the world would be better off. The problem was he wanted to pretend help Africans and the like, and thats why hes jetsetting with Epstein (prurient interests aside), its because he wanted to meet people to do his fake charities and buy social clout.
anti_dan
18d ago
The Tea Party movement began shortly before Obama was elected, based on opposition to the 2008 bank bailouts. At that point most of the participants were Ron Paul libertarians, although the movement was nominally bipartisan (and probably actually bipartisan - I'm not sure). It got a big boost after Rick Santelli's viral rant (broadcast live on CNBC from the CME floor in Chicago) against the Obama admin's homeowner bailout in February 2009. I was watching from the London trading floor of a European bank which had not (yet) needed a bailout, and the dominant reaction was that the American traders cheering Santelli were hypocrites because they were opposing Obama's homeowner bailout at a time when the only reason most of them were still employed was Bush's bank bailout. This was also the reaction of the pro-establishment left.
Yes, skipped over the initial stuff that was a backlash against Bush and the Democrats doing Swampy uni-party things because it didn't really address the point he was making which urquan phrased as
I still don't understand what the Tea Party was angry about, except that Barack Obama was a Democrat and the Democratic Party had a trifecta.
But I've seen often described less charitably as "mad he was black and president."
And my point was well he was actually doing a lot of bad things.
I'm not sure how or exactly when the Tea Party transitioned from being a somewhat focussed libertarian movement that was only incidentally a partisan Republican or Red Tribe thing to a proto-MAGA movement of generically pissed off Red Tribers that was only incidentally libertarian and could plausibly be accused of "just hating the idea of a black President". But there is an obvious route - as the movement grew the average IQ dropped, and below a certain IQ threshold any vaguely right-coded popular movement will pick up support from confederate flag-wavers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy-theorists etc. and at that point everyone who isn't a MAGA-type conservative started leaving.
I think this is too uncharitable to the tea partiers and FARRR too charitable to their enemies. A Democrat accusing their political opponents of racism is synonymous with them talking. The media treating these accusations as "plausible" is no different, they are largely DNC stenographers and have been for decades. Maybe there was degradation of the tea party's intellectual movement as it got larger, but mostly IMO it lost any momentum it had when Romney/Ryan lost while acting nerdy and not actually fighting during the campaign. Thats what opened up the opportunity for MAGA/Trump because the only appetite left on the right was for someone who actually fights and didn't care about fake rules made up by liberal media.
anti_dan
19d ago
I guess it comes down to what America is supposed to be getting out of the alliance with Israel. I can see the appeal of having a Westernized client state in the Middle East to hold down the fort, but typically one expects foreign policy optionally to be held almost exclusively by the suzerain.
For decades its mostly served as a distraction and resource sink for the local crazies who want to conquer the world in the name of Muhammad and Allah. Recently its also been a leverage point that gave some people in the region the option of not being crazy in exchange for peace, and that seems to have worked decently for SA and the rest.
The option of getting out of the Israel business means you need some other proxies in the region, and there aren't good options, and there are obviously bad ones, like Iran, who only galaxy brain guys like Ben Rhodes think are a good option.
This wasn't a civil asset forfeiture thing. It was a poorly issued criminal search warrant thing. Every jurisdiction has their own regulations, but disabling cameras might be standard. Seizing all cash in drug/prostitution operations certainly is standard for most jurisdictions.
The officers carrying out the search warrant weren't like NAZIs "just carrying out orders" they were literally executing a search warrant, not only approved by their superiors, but signed by a judge, and in a way that was indistinguishable from the dozens or hundreds of search warrants they had conducted in the past that looked (to them) the exact same. The petty cash tallying problem is a problem. But also they are not the smartest folks.
The real problem is this alleged source and the detective (and his Sergeant/Lieutenant) that believed it. They are the ones that created the situation and then lied to or misrepresented the facts to the judge. And not to let the judge who signed the warrant off the hook. Obviously, they are supposed to swear detectives to their search warrants. If you see something like this, its your judicial duty to bring down your weight on the department and detective. Perhaps through a contempt action, or simply refusing to sign all future warrants.
More options
Context Copy link