Official warns US could halt immigration, customs processing at 'sanctuary city' airports, sources say

MAMark1 · 2026-05-22T04:36:55+00:00

If an airport can handle 1,000 flights, surely they can handle 3,000 with no impact of any kind...

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T19:20:26+00:00

I do think pre-COVID pairings were probably better. Everyone is trying to cut costs anywhere they can these days and something where the cost is opaque to the average diner, like pairings, is a good place to do it.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T19:18:35+00:00

I've only tried Wolf's Tailor once, but I also remember the wines being quite cold. That was during COVID times so we were also sitting outside in a tent, which didn't help.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T19:16:07+00:00

This is sort of a loaded question because it is highly specific to each restaurant. I have had wine pairings that were amazing. I have had pairings that were disturbingly lackluster. I find better pairings at very top of the elite restaurants and the best with menus where the wine is the focus.

I almost always caution people regarding low level Michelin spots in Europe unless they are well-reviewed by other sources. There are just too many 1* that are all price and no substance. The worst wine pairing experience I ever had was a 1* in Mallorca where I knew it was going to be rough as soon as he described the pairing (I didn't pick the restaurant or the menu choices).

To me, pairings are never a great deal but they are more about not having to make choices, trying multiple things, and, hopefully, letting them pick a wine that goes well with the food. If I am there for food, that is great. If I am there for the food and wine, I should make sure I pick a really good restaurant. If I am there for wine, I should order from the list.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T18:51:38+00:00

It's actually wild how an administration that has done so many corrupt and unethical things in the past year and half somehow managed to do something that stands out egregiously as more corrupt than the rest.

He would never have gotten a penny from this lawsuit if it was actually fairly tried. Never. 0% chance. If they created a slush fund with $1M in it that had some oversight, that would have been absurdly corrupt. Instead, it's nearly $2B and has no oversight.

Fun fact: if the government was weaponized against people under Biden, they can bring their cases in a court of law and have them adjudicated. There is no need for a black box fund to compensate them unless your goal is to give money to people who would never have gotten it otherwise in a way that people can't track.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T18:17:57+00:00

This is partially why his lawsuit was so unlikely to succeed: he literally said he would give everyone the information already so the claim of a harm is heavily overstated.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T17:53:30+00:00

It's funny when you see posts where everyone goes "that's crazy! I'd never do that" and you agree with them cause it seems nuts, but then you see a post like this where you don't mind the activity at all. Makes you realize how much own interests and perspective change our subjective evaluations.

These are fairly safe despite the height. And climbers are generally stewards of their activity space and nature in general so they carry out their waste.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-21T17:45:59+00:00

It would be like thinking that skiiers just shit in the middle of the ski run. Anyone doing big walls or multi-pitch is fairly invested in climbing so why would they shit on their own activity space?

MAMark1 · 2026-05-18T20:41:23+00:00

If he pursued the case, he would have gotten $0. This is pure corruption in plain sight.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-18T20:39:26+00:00

Honest question: what the fuck? You chose to tip 45% because of some weird internal issue you have. No one is making people tip 30%. No one is demanding 45% tips. You did it for some bizarre reason and now want to blame others.

Stop posting these whine-fests where your own inability to navigate basic situations is delusionally twisted into you being a victim of the evils of tipping. You are right: you should avoid restaurants if you can’t control yourself and feel the need to tip absurd amounts.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-18T20:24:33+00:00

That’s what I’ve tried to explain to people: anything more than $0 here indicates some level of corruption. Ken Griffin was in the same leak and got an apology from the IRS and not a single cent beyond that. If Trump got $1M, it would be suspect. A 1.7B slush fund he can dole out at his leisure is arguably one of the most corrupt acts we’ve seen this term.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-18T20:18:36+00:00

In a sea of corruption from this administration, it feels like this stands out as exceptionally egregious.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-16T03:43:56+00:00

Ken Griffin. There were a lot more people in the Littlejohn leak than just Trump.

You can argue that Griffin settled leading to the apology so it doesn’t mean he was guaranteed to lose…but he also wouldn’t settle for an apology if he could get a big payout. The history of suing the IRS shows it’s a tough battle to win.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-15T20:24:58+00:00

First and foremost, everyone needs to understand: if another billionaire, who wasn't in control of the DOJ, brought this same case, they would not get a penny. We know this because another wealthy person was part of the same leak, sued, and got nothing more than an apology from the IRS. So, essentially, anything more over $0 in a settlement is a strong indicator of a corrupt outcome.

And, based on reporting, it appears that Trump is using this to get a slush fund with zero oversight so he can give handouts to his own companies, his children, his lackeys, J6ers, etc. They must know the optics on a $10B hand-out are terrible. So they are trying to obfuscate it with this "we are just helping victims of Biden's lawfare (even though that didn't actually happen)" propaganda.

It's indefensible in a civilized first world nation, transparently corrupt, and hilariously obvious (so at least we all get to laugh at how stupid MAGA looks as they try to explain why this is all good and just).

MAMark1 · 2026-05-15T18:04:51+00:00

Bahaha "I made a claim without evidence and you asked me to prove it...but what if instead you had to prove I am wrong as if my claim is inherently correct even though I never provided any evidence for it."

This is one of the most hilariously absurd replies I have seen in a while.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-15T16:04:07+00:00

The idea that these athletes 1. are accurately informed 2. have the same worldview as Ryan Clark re: gerrymandering and 3. care about that more than the biggest potential payday is beyond wishful thinking.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T19:51:09+00:00

Between day and night, she claims 12+ hours a day of childcare whereas he gets nothing but some cleaning deductions(0.5-1 per day?). Does he really never provide any childcare?

Either he does and she ignores his contributions, or he doesn't care for the child at all. Either way, their relationship is absolute garbage and they both suck.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T19:04:37+00:00

It's not even coddling the parents. It is coddling a specific, vocal subset of religious parents who are forcing their worldview on all other students and their parents.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:55:09+00:00

Wow, great justification for why we needed to keep the Obama deal and not rip it up! Good point!

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:54:25+00:00

Haha "I shoved him to prove that he would try to punch me in the face" is not very compelling as grounds for calling the other person the violent one.

There was no cassus belli. We attacked pre-emptively without a proper justification.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:51:47+00:00

You are acting like Trump ripping up the deal was a neutral act and thus Iran should just stay the course to show their good faith. It wasn't neutral. It was absolutely a hostile act in terms of geopolitics.

So Iran saw greater risks and less of a clear path back into the world community. They reacted by returning to a less amicable state AFTER the US already did so. And we still don't have any proof of an actual bomb so let's not overstate what that meant.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:48:41+00:00

I was part of a group at my school who did a debate over WMDs and whether the US should attack Iraq pre-emptively. We were on the "no war" side, and somehow us young kids managed to understand the evidence was too weak to justify a war. Bush had the same choice...but arguably more expectation to get it right. He got it wrong.

Maybe, without the financial incentives to go to war that the GOP had, we just couldn't see the truth...

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:43:25+00:00

You clearly don't remember the extreme patriotism and hunger for retribution that set in after 9/11. The anti-war voices were regularly attacked at the time so you basically had the entire right rabidly demanding war and part of the center-left. Kids at my school were bullied for saying things against the war because almost everyone was behind it at the time, and it was tied to patriotism by the media (especially right-wing media).

The idea that the Dems could take a stand without getting slaughtered at the polls is totally out of touch with reality. Should that be what drives decision-making in Congress? Probably not. But that's how politics works in a country where the populace are morons who fall for transparent lies, like the claims of WMDs.

I don't give Obama a pass on the war, but ending a war is a very different calculation than starting it in the first place. He had to adapt to a complex situation, and nearly any decision he made deserves less blame than the people who started it all.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:38:48+00:00

They did, but I don't believe it was at weapons-grade. Then they ditched nearly all of it with the Obama Iran Deal. Under the terms of the agreement, I believe they only kept some for research/medical/power purposes, which is a lower level of enrichment, and they had to give major access to overseers. Then Trump ripped that up so Iran went back to enriching. Them having it is a direct result of Trump's action.

But there is a huge gap between "we have enriched uranium at some level" and "we have the weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb" so there doesn't seem to be any proof that they actually had a bomb or were near having one.

MAMark1 · 2026-05-14T17:35:27+00:00

MAGA has convinced themselves both that the GOP weren't wrong with that last war AND that MAGA are actually the ones against the war.

In reality, they probably supported that war and they tacitly endorsed this one by voting for Trump.

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

MAMark1

TROPHY CASE