I’m not sure you’ve ever been civil, Tim. You can type both our names in the search bar and see nothing but exasperated name-calling and lies. And never once have I requested sanctions.

It’s crazy because there is no 28th amendment. But don’t worry, this nightmare is almost over.

Biden won the rigged election. He was inaugurated, after all.

Though the hostage exchange and ceasefire is still very fragile, it was funny watching Biden try to take the credit during his final address, and then tell us misinformation was a threat to the country.

A “tense” weekend meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and incoming Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff led to a breakthrough in the hostage negotiations, with the top aide to US President-elect Donald Trump doing more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year, two Arab officials told The Times of Israel on Tuesday.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-swayed-netanyahu-more-in-one-meeting-than-biden-did-all-year/

No apology required, friend. I afford you every right every right to call me dense, naive, or whatever else suits your fancy. I guess we can postpone the conversation until other people can handle it.

Jack Smith's "report" in a nutshell:

Lawyer says he would have won his own case had he not dropped it.

Another nothing-burger from the unlawfully-appointed prosecutor. We can add it to his growing list of failed cases.

I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.

In free speech discourse it's called the Heckler's Veto. I don't think drowning out someone's speech with your own is free speech, but rather a form of censorship. It denies both the speaker's right to speak and the listener's right to hear it.

That is at least partially an easy question to answer, but mostly irrelevant to our discussion. What I, some random person on a forum, thinks we ought to do, doesn't matter. What does matter is that it is true that sacrifices of freedom can be justified for the greater good. That is, if one isn't so conspiracy-minded that one believes that people who want to protect the environment are equivalent to Jihadis. Sure, the latent potential to control and transgress rights is there even with environmentalism, I guess, but it would be really dumb to think that those two groups - jihadis and environmentalists - are comparable in terms of their goals, the degree to which they (might) want to stifle freedoms, and how they would go about it. In fact, it would be moronic.

It isn't true that sacrificing someone's freedom can be justified for The Greater Good, and for two simples reasons. You do not know what The Greater Good is nor how to attain it. What is true, however, is that the environmentalist and the Jihadi both believe they know do know it and how to attain it (or at least they say they do) and both involve imposing their ideologies on others through injustice and the abuse of power.

Okay, so let's unpack that. You appear to be saying that a worldwide Islamic caliphate is less likely to make life on Earth difficult to maintain than if we curtailed a few freedoms for everyone and protected the environment (that is, if the curtailment of freedoms were necessary to do so). Or you are saying that jihadis cause less destruction in pursuing their radical, violent agenda than people who want to protect the environment who might try to legislate some changes in the way we live. Or you could be saying both. You don't see any problems with either of those statements?

I want neither an Islamic nor environmentalist caliphate to govern my life, is what I'm saying.

You speak of curtailing another's freedoms as if it's something you do every other Tuesday. Is this common behavior for you? Or is it a sort of fantasy you have?

Since you can both predict the end of our species and
provide the means to prevent it, what are the answers?

I’m not ok with the end of life on Earth. I just believe you’re more likely to bring it about before any of your bogeymen, and you’ll make our remaining time here more miserable while doing so.

That’s right; I don’t care if they believe they will bring about heaven on Earth. Every ideologue claims he has the intent to better the world through his power, theft, and impositions, if only he could bend the state and the people to his whim, but history shows that it never turns out as intended. In fact I doubt their intent entirely and conclude that they just want to tell people what to do in the hopes of fashioning society in their image. I prefer to let justice be done though the heavens fall, myself.

Reform is what they do to people in prison, and look how well that has worked out for the islamists. European prisons are a breeding ground for recruitment.

I go for the world where no one transgresses another’s freedoms so long another doesn’t transgress theirs. And those ideologies fall squarely into the category that would. I require no other distinguishing categories because the instinct and behavior to coerce and force others to speak, act, and to believe in certain ways is inherent in each, in the Islamist just as it is in you. Their ideologies ought to inform their own beliefs and behaviors, how they live their own lives, not ours.

Unfortunately it is without irony that the reasons you would seek to reform Jihadism, to purge them of their evil beliefs, is the same reasons why they seek to purge you of yours. In the mean time your defence of power furnishes them precisely with the means to do so.

NOS, they literally aim to set up a state governed by Islamic principles, probably through armed conflict. Jihadists must transgress others' rights by definition or they are just cosplaying. That should be obvious to anyone with a big wrinkly libertarian brain such as yourself.

Neo-nazis aim for a white-ethno state governed by Hitlerian principles. Commies aim for a a totalitarian state and the abolition of property. Republicans aim for a state governed by a piece of paper. Greens want the state to control the economy and the weather. Every power-seeker and politico from fringe to establishment seeks to transgress your rights. That’s how politics works. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. What isn’t obvious is that we need to reform one and not the other.

Does the existence of Islamic reformers actually constitute oppression of jihadists, though? If anything, jihadists would be the ones inclined to impose their own political and religious beliefs on others, probably through force or armed conflict by definition. I mean, they literally want to establish a state based on Islamic principles. I don't see how they couldn't transgress others' rights in the process, and I can't think of many plausible things more antithetical to freedom. Shouldn't a libertarian like yourself have some sympathy for those reformers who want some freedom for themselves?

You’ll note the caveat “…so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same”. When that happens all bets are off.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression.

Ouch, Trump sentenced to “unconditional discharge”. No penalty at all. And then the travesty of a case will be appealed by the Supreme Court, and then they’ll have nothing.

I never denied that he tried to halt people coming into the country during Covid-19, like every other country. You’re just unwilling to admit that he was doing it for covid-19 purposes, which are explicitly laid out in his proclamation. Your bad faith won’t mention that the EU suspended travel to non-Europeans just months earlier, for instance. I guess they were just flip-flopping and lying about that whole freedom of movement thing. You don’t mention that each time he did it his order had an expiry date a few months later.

Since you never cite what you quote, I can’t tell whether you know and are hiding this information or just forget the proper rues of citation, but in any case you don’t mention that he made the proclamation with the idea to protect American jobs during the unprecedented events of Covid-19, not because he opposes a certain immigration program.

You also don't mention that Trump started to change his mind about h1-b's shortly after his comments in the debate you cite, which was nearly a decade ago.

"I'm changing. I'm changing. We need highly-skilled people in this country. If we can't do it, we will get them in. And we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have. So we do need highly-skilled," Trump said. "One of the biggest problems we have people will go to the best colleges, they'll go to Harvard, they'll go to Stanford, to Wharton, as soon as they are finished they get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately. They are not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country."

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-immigration-h1b-visas-gop-debate-220233

Changing one's mind is probably tantamount to lying in anti-Trump world, but once one fills in the deep, very deep holes in this sort of narrative-building one comes to realize how sloppy it all really is.

I used to say that Trump was so anti-immigrant that he married two of them. But the opposing and/or supporting of certain immigration policies does not mean one is pro or anti-immigrant. Not a strand of chewing gum can connect these premises to that sort of conclusion, yet that's the story that has been told for years.

You are an other person, and you are completely incredible.

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t value your opinion.

It is funny, in a way, because Anti-immigrant Trump supporters fell for the lie that Trump was anti-immigrant just as anti-Trumpers did. Someone like Ann Coulter comes to mind. It’s the same with the racist Trump supporters. They believed the lie just as anti-Trumpers did, then they get disappointed when they find out it isn’t true; or, in the case of anti-Trumpers, they just keep on believing it.

Source: other people. Believe everything they say.

It’s January 6th, today. As a final kick to the pants, Kamala has to attend her ceremonial duties today and do the Electoral count. There could be some fireworks.

My source? You’re talking to him. I prefer my own conclusions to the conclusions of others, especially authorities. If I’m wrong I’m wrong, but if you’re wrong it’s because you’re credulous.

It’s an interesting point, but a thing and its behaviors are one and the same. It’s impossible to take your eye off one in order to observe the other. There does appear to be a sort of being/behavior dualism, perhaps the result of splitting the two into subject/predicate for the purpose of language.

Oh yeah the Trump guy tries to blow up Trump tower with a cybertruck. The FBI told us so.

Another broken anti-Trumper self-immolating upon his beliefs in an act of terrorism.

Like Sweden?

“Existing official statistics at both the European and global levels regarding total COVID-19-associated and excess overall mortality rates suggest that Sweden was less affected than most comparable countries that implemented stricter lockdown measures (11–13).”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399217/

Then it appears that you are not only for the violation of human rights, but more death as well.

Do you truly believe I was onboard with much more death?

It’s true, I am against the violation of basic human rights. Were you for the violation of basic human rights?

Sounds like something Mao would say. But I never mentioned communism or communists. “Collectivism” doesn’t mean communism in any world I’ve lived in.

Nor did I say that “hyper-individualism” is collectivism. My claim is that there is no “hyper-individualism”. There is no such doctrine or belief convincing people to act this way or that. And until someone demonstrates that there is, such notions can be readily dismissed.

On the other hand, the vast majority of institutions, modes of production, methods of education, and the general culture is collectivist in both structure, practice, and thought. In recent memory we watched as most of the species locked each other in their houses, excluded from daily life those who would not take an unproven medical procedure, closed businesses, denied education, funerals, weddings, and all basic natural rights in favor of the strict regimentation of entire societies. And most allowed it to happen. There we had a clear choice between the two, and the world openly and proudly chose collectivism.

My given name.

You call yourself NOS4A2 for example.

I do not call myself that. You call me that.

How does one hide a real identity?

The fragmentation of groups into other groups and the rise of identity politics is the business of collectivism. Replacing one group identity with another is a collectivist act. And none of the categories listed are in any sense individualistic in practice or in principle.

And this is a common theme among illiberal thinkers. Individualism is the scapegoat, and we see critiques of it often, except we’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere it has been implemented or widely-held in any manner as a philosophy, doctrine, or code of conduct.

Thanks for the refresher. Though I would add that Zelensky himself was “promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack”.

No, I generally read you with great interest, and you stated you have the first event of how the Trump administration will work. That’s not a fact. That’s a prediction of a future Trump administration. We can include in that your predictions of a failing FBI and a Brxit-like economy. Should you be right I’ll be sure to praise your foresight. But it’s interesting to me because predictions of future threats and disasters is one of the processes of moral panic theory. And regarding Trump you make quite a lot of predictions.

We’re all clueless in regards to the future, and anyone who pretends to know it is ridiculous. I don’t find you ridiculous, unlike others, so it is especially jarring when I read it from you.

Enjoy your holidays, ssu; stay free.

Just lovely.

Joe Biden commutes sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates

Joe Biden has commuted the sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates, changing their punishment to life imprisonment without parole.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/23/joe-biden-death-row-inmate-sentences-commuted-clemency

We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration.

These predictions are fun. Great fodder. I’m just curious.. have you ever been right?

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

The access Hollywood tape is not evidence he committed sexual assault.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

Classic contextomy. You quote that he moved on Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch” but leave out the clause immediately after “but I couldn’t get there.” Of course, Nancy O’Dell didn’t describe any assault during the encounter. This is because taking someone furniture shopping is not sexual assault in the real world.

You quote “grab” and “star”, and fill in the blanks in-between, but leave out “they let you do it”. There is no evidence of assault in the tape at all. The summary from the court is stupid.

You make no attempts at objectivity, just fallacy, propaganda, and projection.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

What evidence do you have that Trump assaulted Carroll? DNA? Video? Admission of guilt? It’s bizarre that you can believe someone committed a crime without evidence. Unable to ignore the facts about your folk devil?

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. He coached the witness. He scolded the defense. He tried to say her claim was “substantively true” when it was not. Did the jury believe the plaintiffs claims of rape or no? The answer is no, and no amount of gymnastics is going to change that.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

How did she prove it? You tell me and we’ll see who is ignoring reality.

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt.

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form.

“Did Ms.Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll?

No”

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. This is a corrupt case from top to bottom.