A woman who lives across the street from the building said she ran over to her window after hearing the pop of the fireworks. She said she saw a man pick up a gun, which prompted her to

Get the heck away from the window? I know that’s what I would do if I saw that shit going down. But no, instead she decided to

grab her cellphone and start recording a video.

Yup, peak 2026 right there. In fairness, after selling that video to the NYT she might be able to afford groceries this week.

As if Donald Trump is capable of embarrassment…

I wonder if they are calling it the “drone deal” just to get under Trump’s skin. After all, he views the world as a zero-sum game, and the US as competing with Europe. So, any deal thar Europe “gets” is one less deal for the US.

Ukraine’s territorial integrity shouldn’t be subject to “deals”, but here we are.

Hah, you think those ICE officers give a shit about what experts say?

There are legitimate concerns about American participation in the ICC:

• the US Constitution guarantees jury trials for major offenses, and the ICC doesn’t use them

• the US Constitution states that the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and there is no room for an international court to fit in that structure

• US courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and there is no mechanism to insert the ICC into that.

So it’s not just that the US doesn’t want to play nice, there are things in the structure of the ICC that violate the US Constitution. Those contradictions would have to be resolved before the US can join, either by changing the ICC or changing the US Constitution.

The US is an ICC signatory and is supposedly obligated to comply

Not anymore. Clinton signed the treaty but never submitted it for ratification, so the US technically was never part of the ICC, and Bush “un-signed” it, absolving the US of any responsibilities whatsoever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

There are two reasons he can’t do anything.

First is the idea that when the UN chose to place its HQ in New York, the US likely had to agree to safe passage for all diplomats and officials going to the General Assembly. That just makes sense. The UN can’t function if the Host Nation gets to control who goes to the meetings.

Second, the US isn’t a party to the ICC in the first place, and doesn’t formally recognize its jurisdiction. IMO, this is actually the correct position, because the ICC as it is currently run does not guarantee all the protections that US courts grant its citizens, so the US could not subject its citizens to it. (Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty at first, acknowledged this and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. George W Bush “un-signed” the treaty a few years later).

So, it really would be impossible for a local police force to arrest a foreign leader with diplomatic immunity on the warrant of a court which is not recognized by the government.

No,you don’t get it. The mere fact that he is talking about it now is a good indication that he’s already done all the analysis, and knows he can’t take any action. So, by coming out and saying he’s “examining” it, he continues to keep the issue in the news and gain popularity on it in spite of knowing the law is not on his side.

He has made the political determination, though, that even New York City, which by some estimations has over 1M Jewish people living in it, is fed up with Netanyahu. Which is pretty remarkable.

Researchers aren’t interested in our individual data, but companies sure are interested in selling it…

I guess Oregon just doesn’t get to vote, then? They’ve been mail-only for years

Those 2 independants caucus with Democrats and would vote for their candidate for Leader, so the current margin once Mitch departs is 52/47 (or, 2 1/2 seats).

The real problem for Fetterman “flipping” is after the election. While there’s every possibility the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, if they claw back a few Senate seats then the balance may end up 50/50 (or even 51D/49R). That’s when Republicans will put on a huge pre$$ure campaign to get someone to defect and promise them all sorts of shit to bail them out of election consequences.

I could be. But where do they get the data?

University of Minnesota researchers analyzed 120 million vehicle trips across the United States from four Wednesdays in 2021 using driving data on national road networks, speed limits and U.S. Geological Survey elevation data. The analysis included roads with speed limits of 45 mph (72 kph) and higher.

Where did they get the data? Did the drivers of all 120 million trips consent to being part of their study?

“Driving data on national road networks” sounds innocuous, but hides a lot of questions. Was it part of information gathered by the governments for toll roads, or for other reasons? Or was it telemetry gathered from the cars themselves? Do the drivers know that their data on their individual trips is being distributed to researchers?

This is a giant red flag to me. Our information is being distributed everywhere, and there’s fuck-all we can do about it…

How does the judge plan to enforce it? Because the Administration will not listen.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes

Oh yeah, not only will they ignore it, but we are about to get all sorts of vile memes making fun of that judge and her name, aren’t we?

If you press a US “second amendment enthusiast” about gun reform, at one point they will inevitably reply angrily with something like “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”

There are other parts of the Bill of Rights that, while written in an absolute manner, have been found to have some limits. The First Amendment is rather demonstrative that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Yet, we recognize limits on speech, the most famous one being yelling “fire” in a theater (when there is none) Yes, you have the right to speech, but if your speech unnecessarily created panic the government can punish you on that basis.

It seems quite clear to me that gun ownership here, even with the 2nd amendment, should come with responsibilities too. Gun owners still have a moral duty to be responsible about it, and not just carelessly put others in danger. Yet, the 2nd Amendment is presented as an absolute, with no strings attached, as if God sent them Himself on stone tablets. It’s like the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters…

Lol, I just heard about people calling it “MAHA Blast”

https://bsky.app/profile/crobertcargill.bsky.social/post/3mqs653ozb22q

It is illegal, if anyone else in Government did it. But if the President does it, it’s not illegal, somehow.

When your diaper’s getting packed and your hair is kinda wack - Trumporrhea!

Check those hard drives for wallet.dat files before reformatting them…