Because Kamala

[Ivanhoe]

lol

Some folks are picking up on her, um, peccadillos.

 

[rmgill]

So photogenic they need AI for the press PR photos...

https://x.com/monsterhunter45/status/1880330076870570351

[Murph]

Heck the dumb woman would probably twerk if it would get her votes, drinks, and did not throw out her back....

[Ivanhoe]

Her future may be doing celebrity endorsements of Hennessy cognac.

For you honkies (a.k.a. People Of Honk), Hennessy (a.k.a. "Henny" a.k.a. "yack") is a cultural touchstone in American black culture.

Irony of ironies; Hennessy makes different grades of their cognac, a mid-grade very popular with the peeps is Pure White. Very hard to get in CONUS, you must go to the Carib to get it usually.

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

[Murph]

LOL!  Great one.  

[Ivanhoe]

Walz heckled;

https://x.com/GrageDustin/status/1910129730772181461

 

[rmgill]

On 8/27/2024 at 9:13 PM, Skywalkre said:

So in this fantasy land of yours how do you explain the drastic rise in border crossings in 2019 compared to the lows of the Obama years before?  Did Trump 'proceed to open' the border after Obama had closed it?  Of course not.  For starters, the borders have never been closed and the POTUS doesn't have the power to just unilaterally declare that.  He could try... but it's unlikely it'd hold up in court (and even many Rs acknowledge this).

But back to reality.  When we saw that rise in 2019 there were a host of reasons for it.  The US economy was continuing to improve which is the biggest indicator of what will draw in illegals.  On top of that we had back then, as we still do today, a broken immigration system in need of overhaul.  That overhaul has to come from Congress, and Congress has basically abdicated their responsibility in so many ways for much of the last two decades.

When '21 hit and the numbers of illegals shot up again you have similar reasons.  Biden didn't 'open the border' (rmgill posted all of Biden's EOs about immigration a while ago and in typical fashion didn't bother to read them... several actual tightened the borders (COVID related), many made no change, and the rest eased some burdens on illegals).  We had the US bouncing back after COVID tied to COVID devastating third world countries that were already struggling in Central and South America.  Illegals were also wising up to ways to exploit our system (such as claiming asylum as a quick way into the country).  The latter made the process more appealing, but the doors were never thrown open.

That compromise border bill, something even the BP was in support of, wasn't perfect (and no one is saying it was) but it would have addressed some of the loopholes like the asylum system and sent a lot more cash the BP's way.  If Rs were serious about the border they would have taken a bad bill for the benefits it gave in the short-term and then, assuming they won, pushed for a bill they preferred later.  Instead, they were blatantly clear they'd rather kill the compromise in order to avoid the Ds getting a 'win' (and this isn't the typical BS most of you all pull on here by being cute-sy with quotes... many Rs were open about this at the time).

With that bill dead Biden was forced to keep pushing with EOs... and the latest ones from early summer seem to be working in conjunction with cooperation from Mexico in getting crossings down to their lowest point since he took office.  There are already some indications the border is dropping in priority to voters because of this shift.  Rs could have taken the win from all sides and highlighted how they're willing to work together to solve issues (something voters across the spectrum keep screaming every year they want above partisan BS) but instead may have missed that opportunity.

Again, highlighting one of Sky’s posts on the border to see how his prognostications match to reality. 
 

So, Sky, compare border crossings then to now. What changed? 

[Murph]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Again, highlighting one of Sky’s posts on the border to see how his prognostications match to reality. 
 

So, Sky, compare border crossings then to now. What changed? 

Shhhh, don't confuse him with reality.  

[Ivanhoe]

Now you know. 

Word on the street is that Magnus Carlsen has staffers make sure he's never in the same city as Harris at the same time.
 

[rmgill]

Why do I get the impression she probably calls the knight the Horsey and can remember how queens, kings and bishops move? 

[Skywalkre]

On 11/9/2025 at 8:53 AM, rmgill said:

Again, highlighting one of Sky’s posts on the border to see how his prognostications match to reality. 

Once again, there are no prognostications in your quoted post (do you know what that word even means?).

I will add this, one thing no one foresaw over a year ago was how far SCOTUS would bend backwards to support Trump.  A story from the end of this summer showed Trump was only winning about a third of challenges below SCOTUS (a level below Biden's rate, and both rates are apparently lower than previous norms).  However, those numbers more than double when he gets to SCOTUS.  Experts were certainly expecting a sympathetic court... but not one that's this sympathetic.

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

 

I will add this, one thing no one foresaw over a year ago was how far SCOTUS would bend backwards to support Trump.  A story from the end of this summer showed Trump was only winning about a third of challenges below SCOTUS (a level below Biden's rate, and both rates are apparently lower than previous norms).  However, those numbers more than double when he gets to SCOTUS.  Experts were certainly expecting a sympathetic court... but not one that's this sympathetic.

Which cases do you think should have went the other way?

[Skywalkre]

21 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Which cases do you think should have went the other way?

It's not just the cases but also how everything has been handled.  Basically everything has been through SCOTUS' shadow docket, which is something that was rarely used before Biden's term.  Trump, in just one year of this term, has had more shadow docket cases ruled on than during all of Biden's term... and the 16 years of GWB and Obama had all of eight submissions to SCOTUS via the shadow docket (Trump's people are on like... 25 or so submissions right now).  The shadow docket has no hearings, arguments, and often no actual commentary from SCOTUS outside of their decision.  When the lower courts are ruling 2:1 against Trump and then SCOTUS comes out in favor of him 90% of the time, but gives no direction... kinda makes it hard for the lower courts to know what they should be doing.

Now, to be fair, many of these cases are still technically working their way through the system... but SCOTUS is still ruling to remove injunctions/reverse decisions while said cases are working their way up.  I think there's a strong argument to be made of why couldn't things be left to work their way through the system as they always had.  The shadow docket existed for time sensitive matters, and most of these cases simply aren't.

Then there's the decisions.  Two jump out that made me scratch my head.  The first is SCOTUS effectively ruled that ICE can racially profile (they may not have said this directly but the end result is the same).  While many who frequent TN probably aren't seeing the results of this decision given the 'news' sources they go to, the rest of America is seeing the results (and not liking it).  The other case was their ruling on Trump stopping funds to foreign aid that had been appropriated by Congress.  The underlying issue in that case is a rather fundamental one about the roles outlined in the Constitution, and raises some serious questions about how the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse, but now SCOTUS is saying POTUS can just ignore that?  Yeah, kind of a big deal, that one.

[Sinistar]

keep in mind all of this is going on while for a long time democrat and left leaning legal aid clinics have been going around in the courts in order to change policy- they go judge shopping - often in the ninth circuit in order to litigate any procedural technicality in order to functionally have open borders

 

lawmakers who defined and established what the rules are for entering and staying have been short-circuited because of the precedents that are going on case after case being litigated 

asking district courts to review the ability to do anything and getting a decision which might put a hold on any procedure which used to be standard

to find and apprehend anyone who is in the country illegally is all but frozen or that is the aim

it does not matter whether it appears to conform with the law or it looks like a blatant overreach and the use and abuse power under color of authority

any procedure you use here is now pending before the courts and potentially freezes any attempts to do anything

release them no matter the risk level

people cannot be illegal or cannot be illegal in a country which is stolen is the view of the most vocal on the left

and that is what they are trying to do in the courts

 

the right had actually been asleep as to how this works because many on the right view it all through a constructionist lense- which is to say, they tended not to be believe in case law so much as the direct and straightforward language of the constitution as it is originally written and that the courts would simply see it that way which makes sense to the right

they were either getting creamed on this naive view or they were not paying attention

 

 

you see it go either way- if you are on the right then a left leaning 5-4 court is out of control or does not know how to follow the law

if you are on the left it is the same but in reverse with a right wing court

 

you have both sides now who understand lawfare

if you have the courts then it does not matter what the other two are doing

why would you not do that if your opponent does it

it would not make sense

the courts are obviously leveraged by politics no matter the attempt to deny that

literally nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislative

that looks like check on power

but if it isn't then what

 

 

and i would say this: it is obviously a gray area in the constitutional separation of powers which is doing this

there is a loophole in there somewhere where anyone can abuse power especially if at least two of branches of power are controlled  by the same party

or if not then the court is your best chance to fight the other two

choose a number of strategies including where to bring your case by region

because the tendency is to look for the courts to somehow modify change or stop behaviors

what is the alternative- you need the courts to settle disputes otherwise you have lawlessness

but even with the courts by definition someone is looking for a way around the law or a way to leverage it in bizarre ways in order to win the case and you can still have 'lawlessness' with the approval of the court

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2025 by Sinistar

[Ivanhoe]

Walz claims that people keep driving past his house yelling "Retard!" after Trump called him the R-word. 

He's trying to posture as the victim of some future political violence, but AFAICT is getting no traction. 

[17thfabn]

Walz could have a future in acting. He could be the standard hapless white male grandpa / boss. They are always in demand on sitcoms. 

[DKTanker]

38 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Walz could have a future in acting. He could be the standard hapless white male grandpa / boss. They are always in demand on sitcoms. 

His costar might even be a carrot chomping rabbit.

[17thfabn]

Wow, Governor Walz is really getting into character. 

[Ivanhoe]

[Ivanhoe]

There is nowhere to hide for Tim Walz;

 

[Ivanhoe]

[Ivanhoe]

[DKTanker]

+100