Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's
@ri.oldfolkshome.org
@RIOldFolksHome in all the places
Why should we think a ratifying convention in state X would give a different yes/no answer than the legislature in state X?
November 29, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Why should we think a ratifying convention in state X would give a different yes/no answer than the legislature in state X?
And if that person is US military there is an 23yo federal law that authorizes the president to use force to obtain their release.
(Which of course doesn’t mean a president has to.)
(Which of course doesn’t mean a president has to.)
November 29, 2025 at 10:55 PM
And if that person is US military there is an 23yo federal law that authorizes the president to use force to obtain their release.
(Which of course doesn’t mean a president has to.)
(Which of course doesn’t mean a president has to.)
THE JAMES T. KIRK CREDO!
November 29, 2025 at 6:08 PM
THE JAMES T. KIRK CREDO!
And Indian food.
November 29, 2025 at 5:03 AM
And Indian food.
You get to say “yeah, everyone — including people I claim to care about — gets fucked over but *my* hands are clean [narrator: no, they actually aren’t] so I’m good”
November 29, 2025 at 4:53 AM
You get to say “yeah, everyone — including people I claim to care about — gets fucked over but *my* hands are clean [narrator: no, they actually aren’t] so I’m good”
Intentionally taking an action or position that helps the GOP win again, given the state of today’s GOP, is an intrinsically immoral and unethical act.
November 29, 2025 at 4:14 AM
Intentionally taking an action or position that helps the GOP win again, given the state of today’s GOP, is an intrinsically immoral and unethical act.
“It’s better for the GOP to win again than for the Dems to not be willing to hand Americans over to the ICC” **is itself an immoral position**.
November 29, 2025 at 4:09 AM
“It’s better for the GOP to win again than for the Dems to not be willing to hand Americans over to the ICC” **is itself an immoral position**.
We do. The problem is that Trump can pardon the people who committed them. As he’s already done at least once even before this whole Venezuelan idiocy began.
November 29, 2025 at 4:05 AM
We do. The problem is that Trump can pardon the people who committed them. As he’s already done at least once even before this whole Venezuelan idiocy began.
I will say your interlocutor is correct in that SCOTUS’s idiotic presidential immunity decision interacts with the pardon power in a very bad way.
November 29, 2025 at 3:58 AM
I will say your interlocutor is correct in that SCOTUS’s idiotic presidential immunity decision interacts with the pardon power in a very bad way.
You need more than a majority in both houses of Congress, even. Need a separate 2/3rds vote in each chamber and then ratification by 3/4 (so 38) of the states.
This is wishcasting from the “vive la révolution”-adjacent crowd.
This is wishcasting from the “vive la révolution”-adjacent crowd.
November 29, 2025 at 3:56 AM
You need more than a majority in both houses of Congress, even. Need a separate 2/3rds vote in each chamber and then ratification by 3/4 (so 38) of the states.
This is wishcasting from the “vive la révolution”-adjacent crowd.
This is wishcasting from the “vive la révolution”-adjacent crowd.
Which is something the *supporters* of the law that was struck down in CU conceded in SCOTUS oral args that the govt would be able to do if the law was upheld.
November 29, 2025 at 3:53 AM
Which is something the *supporters* of the law that was struck down in CU conceded in SCOTUS oral args that the govt would be able to do if the law was upheld.
Having a first amendment right to spend money to get your message out is decades older than Citizens United.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to cheer for the govt being able to ban the publication of books about a candidate too close to an election.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to cheer for the govt being able to ban the publication of books about a candidate too close to an election.
November 29, 2025 at 3:53 AM
Having a first amendment right to spend money to get your message out is decades older than Citizens United.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to cheer for the govt being able to ban the publication of books about a candidate too close to an election.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to cheer for the govt being able to ban the publication of books about a candidate too close to an election.
“At no point…were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
November 29, 2025 at 3:49 AM
“At no point…were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
President can pardon any federal crime.
November 28, 2025 at 11:23 PM
President can pardon any federal crime.
You’re dead on.
People confuse maximizing the probability of winning with maximizing the lateness of the moment of the certainty of loss.
Those are NOT the same thing.
People confuse maximizing the probability of winning with maximizing the lateness of the moment of the certainty of loss.
Those are NOT the same thing.
November 28, 2025 at 11:16 PM
You’re dead on.
People confuse maximizing the probability of winning with maximizing the lateness of the moment of the certainty of loss.
Those are NOT the same thing.
People confuse maximizing the probability of winning with maximizing the lateness of the moment of the certainty of loss.
Those are NOT the same thing.
And unlike some of the finer questions of “was the president’s inherent Art 2 powers in play”, shouldn’t offing people who are hors de combat be clearly known to be an illegal order all the way down the line to the lowest Seaman?
November 28, 2025 at 11:05 PM
And unlike some of the finer questions of “was the president’s inherent Art 2 powers in play”, shouldn’t offing people who are hors de combat be clearly known to be an illegal order all the way down the line to the lowest Seaman?
Would it be fair to say this even if this was an actual war, and the other ship was a member of a combatant navy, that once you blew it up and there were sailors clinging to wreckage, if you just killed them it would be a war crime even then?
November 28, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Would it be fair to say this even if this was an actual war, and the other ship was a member of a combatant navy, that once you blew it up and there were sailors clinging to wreckage, if you just killed them it would be a war crime even then?
I keep thinking of John Gill.
With the (big!) caveat that John Gill wasn’t previously a deranged moronic narcissist.
With the (big!) caveat that John Gill wasn’t previously a deranged moronic narcissist.
November 28, 2025 at 8:19 PM
I keep thinking of John Gill.
With the (big!) caveat that John Gill wasn’t previously a deranged moronic narcissist.
With the (big!) caveat that John Gill wasn’t previously a deranged moronic narcissist.
You've already been given one you've apparently ignored (the Red Lion decision above).
You could also read the actual text of the Fairness Doctrine (available online) as well as the 2011 Congressional Research Service paper on the Fairness Doctrine (also available online).
You could also read the actual text of the Fairness Doctrine (available online) as well as the 2011 Congressional Research Service paper on the Fairness Doctrine (also available online).
November 28, 2025 at 7:41 PM
You've already been given one you've apparently ignored (the Red Lion decision above).
You could also read the actual text of the Fairness Doctrine (available online) as well as the 2011 Congressional Research Service paper on the Fairness Doctrine (also available online).
You could also read the actual text of the Fairness Doctrine (available online) as well as the 2011 Congressional Research Service paper on the Fairness Doctrine (also available online).
The ICC, by its own governing documents, has no authority or even jurisdiction over non-signatories (like the US).
November 28, 2025 at 7:34 PM
The ICC, by its own governing documents, has no authority or even jurisdiction over non-signatories (like the US).