The Frankish Reich

He's a good politician. I've watched him a bit over the last few months. He's young, dynamic, not afraid to say what he thinks. Getting over 50% in NYC was a significant achievement that reflects those skills. I'm thinking that Trump has a grudging admiration for someone who is this good at Trump's own game.

They are a strategic partner, but that's only because of where they're located and how much oil is under that sand. Other than that, they are a disgusting feudal society with almost no homegrown expertise in any field of endeavor whatsoever, living under an unchecked dictator who thinks he's a lot smarter than he really is.

And yet they have a big lead on the generic congressional ballot polling for 2026. Yes, they are fools. But there is a bigger fool.

It's not easy. I know. But it's worth it.

GW Bush just delivered a eulogy for Cheney. Coherent, well written (kudos to the speechwriter), well delivered. Obviously sharper 17 years after his presidency ended than all 3 of our 2024 presidential candidates. A sobering thought.

Who said it was impossible? Like there's never been a high-level meeting with the nominal Palestinian leadership before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Y'all can have your clever, cutting, witty. But please: leave the edgy to the experts.

Come on, you know that situation is just slightly different ...

I was wondering that myself. He was our "doctor of Indian ancestry" if I remember correctly.

Talk about a break. Short week, backup QB, our defense should look kind of ... acceptable again!

Seth made a good point that's somehow been lost on the media, both mainstream and alt. Trump is now supporting a vote that will compel him to release Epstein files, something he ALREADY COULD DO. "Please force me to do it"

Trump just had one of his weird post-Head of State chats with MBS/Saudi. And lashed out at the inevitable Epstein questioner, thereby assuring that the only thing people will remember from this latest Brown Nose the Dictator session is "Epstein."

Hey, I've never called anyone A***Man. I favor the more sophomoric (that's high school for you) responses.

Why don't I deserve a 4th grade nickname? Feeling lesser than.

Oops. https://apnews.com/article/trump-pardon-biden-justice-department-ed-martin-d525b1911534a40f70394fddf396acc1 Note that the bluesky embed from some unknown source is solely for the benefit of our nonreader audience. I am relying on the AP (and you'll find it all over the place) article here.

Trump back on his favorite turf, swapping bs with his favorite (even better than Putin) dictator. And they share a love for beautiful women, many of them on the younger side. https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/inside-the-lavish-life-of-saudi-arabias-party-prince/

Hey, there's nothing that boosts viewership more than a Trump effort to censor. Tells me and my ilk that I must be missing something good.

In reality, Massie is inoculating the public against the next very likely argument: "we have brought charges against [name the Democrat], and many of these files are investigate files that are being used in an ongoing federal prosecution, and therefore they cannot be released."

Summary of the judge's decision: Fitzpatrick also said Halligan, who had never prosecuted a case prior to Comey’s, appeared to make two “fundamental misstatements of law” to the grand jury that could jeopardize the indictment altogether. He said Halligan, facing tough questions from grand jurors, appeared to suggest Comey might have to testify at trial to explain his innocence, an improper characterization of the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fitzpatrick also said Halligan appeared to improperly suggest grand jurors could assume the government had more evidence against Comey than what it presented to them. “The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” he wrote.

Reports this morning say that rookie Hannigan told the grand jury "there is more evidence to come." Holy crap, that's a rookie mistake. It turns the grand jury process into "go ahead, indict, by the time of the trial we'll have plenty of evidence to prove the charges." What a farce. The charges will be dismissed. I believe the government would appeal, but if that's the record here, they've got a huge problem.

The only thing I know is it will take over a decade to actually build anything.

Thanks to Trump, I watched Seth Meyers this morning. Not bad! A little repetitive with the Trump jokes, but a couple good ones. Trump will make me a fan.

I'm not belittling your concerns, but I do wonder how your friend knew his lymphoma was caused by glyphosate. How would it wind up in wine? As I understand it, it isn't the vine/grape uptaking it from the soil. It is from a grower spraying glyphosate somewhere nearby and from "drift" - particles that are sprayed do wind up in places they weren't meant to go. And that is a real problem. As far as remaining chemically active in the soil? There are very good studies showing that it doesn't, which is why the standard warning is a fairly short waiting period between clearing growth with glyphosate and planting. Again, I don't know a whole lot about commercial usage, and obviously there are big problems there. I'm talking about my own residential usage. I limit that (30% vinegar is awesome and cheap!) and follow the guidelines of my agricultural extension. For me, that's Colorado State University, and they are great people and researchers. Extremely helpful and nonpolitical; what we want our public servants to be.

The point about not killing bees is important too.

The other point I'm trying to make is that even assuming that glyphosate is toxic, that toxicity is limited to those applying it, those inhaling it downwind, etc. There is no study showing that plants grown in soil previously treated with glyphosate show such toxicity. Did the American farmer jump into glyphosate overuse without sufficient study or oversight? Absolutely. And the marketing by Monsanto was aggressive and treated it as basically risk-free - I think they invented the term "conservation tillage" which means "kill the weeds with Roundup instead of deep tilling the soil before planting." I lived in the upper Midwest back in the day and those commercials aimed at farmers were a daily thing.