Nate Hashem

Whenever I'm using it for any sort of brainstorming, I always feel weird when I want to stop.

"ok, I'll be here if you want to talk more about these ideas for your D&D campaign"

No man, we're good! Go do something else. You earned the day off buddy. Don't waste it waiting for me!

The reason the Border Patrol is like this is that they have been allowed to operate outside the law for decades as marcher lords, with an ingrained and hereditary culture of brutality.

What's the criteria for a connection? Met in real life? Had 1-1 communication? (email, DM, etc)

Latest negotiations over Woke 2.0 Accords are showing progress, although diplomats caution there is still a long way to go.

The mood is cautious optimism as Dave Chapelle, Bill Burr, and Jon Stewart have been tapped for the next round of negotiations, over "Permissive Use of Light Slurs."

On a podcast about the LAPD, one interviewee talked about various police reforms, legislation, etc that they were proud their civic group pushed in the 1990s.

Another interviewee: "Reform, bullshit. What we wanted was police to respect the Black community. Do you see respect out there? I don't."

Worth mentioning part of why #2 is "slightly disappointing" is it's often ambiguous that the "masses were mobilized" to do... what, exactly? Did we actually agree on that before we protested together? Probably not!

If you are planning to be involved in political action of any type, they have your name. The thing to do is make their lists useless by having so many names on them.

I'd also love to hear who Tommy Tuberville would pick as his preferred "non-woke" performer. I'm sure it's someone with broad mainstream appeal that would deliver high ratings!

We do have a problem in the MSM that is arbitrarily selective in where it pushes back on "delusion." Felt like 30% of every Dem primary debate was Elizabeth Warren needing to explain how she'd do M4A without raising taxes. Then she released a full policy plan and it got nitpicked.

This sucks because I was hoping Markey would just retire, but this video is screaming "I'm going to try to fend off Moulton so that means making content that drives ActBlue donations."

Say more? I probably know the least about 08-09, my sense is that Olmert did offer a "good deal" but the Israeli political spectrum was much more resistant. Then by the 2014 talks it was obvious Netanyahu had no interest in a deal.

Anyway, the liberal Zionist interpretation of 2000 is basically:

- Barak/Clinton offered a good deal that was an improvement over Oslo
- Arafat should've gotten over "right of return"
- Surely within another 5-7 years there would've been another deal to cement Palestinian statehood

If the argument is that Oslo did let the pressure off Israel from UNSCR 242 and Palestinians didn't get nearly enough in return - sure. But in 1999 I think Israel did feel pressure they actually *had* to talk or Oslo goodwill would be forfeit.

If Camp David 2000 had led to a deal, do you have any opinions on what that deal would've been, and would it have changed the context of where you view Oslo now?

"We don't build anything in America anymore." Guy, I don't know about you, but ever since the YouTube algo hooked me, I've repaired 47 sections of drywall in my home.

And you go "Wow, that's misleading. Why don't they fix the buttons to say what they do?" and your coworker rolls her eyes. "We ask them, but the team that built the app is way too busy. Last time we asked for an estimate they said Q4. So yeah, don't click 'Approve' to Approve."

If you're not a software dev but you've used internal apps at a Good White Collar job - on Day 2 your coworker shows you The Big App We All Use which is both critical path to your job but also sucks. "So to approve the statement, click 'Accept.' Don't click 'Approve,' that actually will reject it."

Man, nobody is talking to line engineers at big non-tech corps. I never have to dread working on "legacy apps" again. "Working on a legacy app that requires all your bandwidth to maintain and thus no time to reactor" used to be a soul-destroying role for software engineers.

I'm not saying Jacob Frey needs to make this point NOW, but, well, it's probably gonna come up eventually?

I guess that's what I really dread - border enforcement goes back to Biden standards, which is both a) inhumane to immigrants who aren't abled enough to trek here, b) easily demagogued by the right, and c) takes pressure off Congress for real reform and paths to citizenship.

Like it would've clearly been better if Biden was much stricter on asylum claims, and said "If you feel bad, I do too. They're gonna make great Americans. But we need Congress to act to give them real channels and a path to citizenship. Until then, don't trek to the southern border claiming asylum."

I appreciate this response. I'm just dreading 2026/28 Dems (either electeds, pundits, or just posters) trying to make a similar point, and everyone pouncing on them for conceding anything is wrong with asylum law.

Anyway, I'd like to be able to say these things, even though some would consider it "giving concessions to the right." I unironically believe in One Billion Americans and think Biden's border policy did massive damage to that future.

/end

And yeah, I think asylum claims were being abused. And I would prefer an immigration system that doesn't outsource relocation and settlement to Greg Abbott.

And lastly, no path to citizenship for any of these immigrants made them legally vulnerable to these ICE/CBP crackdowns.

My objection is more on liberal humanitarian grounds - Biden's immigration policy was extremely generous to immigrants who could physically cross the border, but how many would-be immigrants perished in the Darien Gap or got extorted by coyotes on the way?

I think Biden's immigration policy was extremely poorly designed in practice. Some of the "reforms" I would prefer would be "moving to the right." e.g. I don't think we should have anything like the asylum policies at the US southern border like we did from 2021-23...

I still get annoyed about this: Pete was always the Biden's admin best voice, obviously would've been an asset in a campaign tied to the Biden admin. And would've kept Vance on the ropes in the VP debate.

Good example of this IMO, was the de facto assumption that Kamala Harris "needed to pick a white guy VP," and Kamala herself ruling out Buttigieg because she was worried the country couldn't digest both a Black woman and a gay man.

Wait why? Because Saudi won't just rubber stamp the Abraham Accords, and Israel won't even give them the vague noises about "a path to Palestinian statehood" that they'd accept at this point?